Marvel's Eternal Connundrum

It’s official: The MCU’s released a dud.

It seems like a bigger deal than it is, as they’ve gone 26 movies without one, but given how the internet reacted to the news, it felt like the world was ending. But it’s not. It was inevitable, assuming the Netflix and primetime shows don’t count, and I’m impressed it took so long. So let’s discuss Eternals. Be prepared for light spoilers.

I’ll get the elephant in the room out of the way: you wouldn’t know Eternals was “bad” from the marketing. The trailers were no worse than other MCU entries, the directing was solid and the casting was really strong. This was also a passion project for Chloé Zhao, one she’d fought for for some time. Given her recent awards for Nomadland, and how Kevin Feige was impressed by some of her shot compositions, nothing indicated a disaster. So what went wrong?

It’s tough to say. Zhao was working with bizarre and confusing material. Jack Kirby might’ve been a legend in the world of comics, but the concept for The Eternals opened a Pandora’s Box that, to this day, remains divisive. It doesn’t help that adapting it for the 21st Century meant updating concepts that haven’t aged well, particularly the Deviants. She had serious handicaps from the get-go.

You see that in the movie itself. Theoretically, the premise isn’t unsalvageable: 10 super-powered beings fight human-eating predators while questioning their purpose. That alone could make for something great, especially with the right amount of sensitivity. Unfortunately, much of the story’s expository pondering about humanity, the meaning of life and if the ends justify the means. Add in time jumps, and that The MCU has struggled when it’s focused too heavily on world-building, and I’m surprised the movie doesn’t trip over itself more often.

For example, one scene deals with Hiroshima. In it, Phastos ponders if his desire to help society advance was a mistake, given the human propensity for violence and destruction. It’s interesting, and it could’ve made for a story on its own, but since this is The MCU’s first openly-gay character, it’s icky. And yes, you read that correctly.

That’s the movie’s biggest issue: it’s littered with writing decisions and concepts that don’t work. Ikaris’s villain arc, aside from cribbing Watchmen’s Ozymandias, has so many weird highs and lows that its resolution, jettisoning himself into The Sun, comes from nowhere and doesn’t feel earned. Nor does Sprite’s crush on Ikaris, or her desire to live a human life. Even Thena’s conflict, her struggle to control her free will, is lopsided, and while it ends nicely, it’s a serious head-scratcher.

These choices are peppered throughout, making everything lacklustre. And the climax, in which 8 of the Eternals band together to prevent a Celestial from destroying Earth, has so many left-field moments that it feels less satisfying than it should. Seriously, count them. If you can do that, congratulations! Pat yourself on the back.

Arguably the biggest failing is the emotional core. There are many scenes that should’ve made me cry, but didn’t. And it’s because the script didn’t get me invested in the Eternals’ inner dilemmas. That’s not a good sign considering The MCU once made me teary-eyed over a raccoon grieving a sentient tree. What happened?

I feel bad for pointing this out. There’s a lot of sincerity here that’s missing in some of The MCU’s best. The casting is diverse. There’s a sex scene that feels genuine. The movie has a gay man and a deaf girl of prominence, and neither feels forced. Even the acting’s leagues above the writing, elevating moments that’d otherwise feel mediocre.

That’s why discussing this movie is so difficult. I wanted to love Eternals, and there were moments where I genuinely enjoyed myself. But while it’s not good, there’s too much that works here for me to despise it altogether. Even Thor: The Dark World wore its mediocrity like ratty clothing, but Eternals? I’m not sure what to think of Eternals!

I know movie watching is subjective and personal. Eternals, therefore, is no different. If someone loves it, I can see the case for why. Conversely, if someone despises it, I can also see that. But myself? I don’t know. It takes a lot to actively turn me off from a movie, but I might need to re-watch this one a few more times to properly assess it. That’s how odd it is.

I also think the discourse surrounding the film’s existence has been blown way out of proportion. Is it the worst movie ever? Not really. I wouldn’t even call it the worst superhero movie ever, there are several other candidates that better fit that. But is it a good movie? No, and that’s okay. We’ve gone this long without a dud from The MCU, and that’s commendable. Besides, Eternals being bad doesn’t matter in the grand scheme. Not at this stage.

Now then, about Hawkeye…

Flip the Switch

I loved the Wii U. It was a great update of the Wii, and it had really neat and innovative ideas built into it (like a controller that doubled as a tablet.) True, its library was small, and its marketing sucked, but I appreciated its brilliance. Its few games were also really good. I can’t lie about that.

While this won’t be me discussing the Wii U’s under-utilized potential, the console’s strengths have definitely carried forward with the Switch. Ignoring how well its games have done, the console is a living, breathing Wii U 2.0 that learned from its direct predecessor’s mistakes. That should be appreciated more, and I don’t think a lot of the conversation talks about that. So that’s what I’ll do.

To begin, let’s go back to the Switch’s initial announcement. A lot of people weren’t sold at first glance, I think prior expectations were to blame, but it’s also important to remember Nintendo’s position in 2017. The Wii U was their worst-selling console outside the Virtual Boy, and much of their goodwill had dissipated. It didn’t help that the Wii’s casual fanbase, who were responsible for much of its success, had departed, and that little effort was put into differentiating the two consoles. So it’s easy to see the skepticism.

But I wasn’t skeptical. Like I said, I loved the Wii U. And I like Nintendo products. I wasn’t bothered by Wii Music’s reveal at E3 2008, so it was enough to cool the initial disappointment. Still, despite 1-2-Switch showing real promise, especially for the visually-impaired, Nintendo’s presentation was pretty lacklustre overall. It was forced, the transitions were choppy and many of the games left much to be desired. I was hopeful, true, but there’d have to be something special to make this work.

And there was. Ignoring The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, early rumours of the Switch being easier to program than the Wii U helped. And they were founded, as third-party developers started porting their titles to the system in droves. It was as if the last 5 years no longer mattered. Nintendo was back.

Which brings me to the Switch. I bought mine in 2008, months after launch, and it was an expensive purchase. But while it took time to recoup my investment, I wasn’t unhappy. Unlike the Wii U, which I got 5 years late, second-hand and with hardware glitches, my Switch was fresh from the assembly line. It was also, unlike my Wii U, easy to set up. Whereas my Wii U took close to 2 hours to activate, my Switch only took about 15 or so minutes. That’s a big difference.

It helped that the console had true portability. Not that the Wii U didn’t have portability, it did, but there were limitations. For one, the undocked mode had to be used on the tablet, which was heavy and uncomfortable. Additionally, it had to be used within range of the console. Because the Wii U used discs, like the Wii before it, the tablet was less portable and more a satellite extension of the console. Add in the poor battery life, and it often made handheld play a hassle.

The Switch wasn’t like that. Being cartridge-based, like the DS line, portability was easy. You inserted the game in the top slot, closed the hatch and pressed the power button. It was as simple as that, and even simpler to use in handheld mode. Not only could you play your game attached to the TV screen, you could take it on the go too. And you could switch options with ease.

Even in handheld mode you had options. Want to play the Switch like a tablet? You can. Want to have multiple people use the same Switch? Detach the controllers, prop the console on its kickstand and have fun. Want to play with multiple Switches? You can do that too.

That was the Switch’s greatest secret: options. The console had taken the best of the Wii U and the best of the DS and merged them into one. It helped that internet connectivity, which was a sore spot with past Nintendo products, was streamlined to be more efficient. Combine that with multiple offline modes, and it’s no wonder the Switch is a hot-seller.

The games library helped. First and second-party titles were always the go-to for Nintendo systems, but Switch entries were so well-suited they kept selling like hotcakes. Even many Wii U ports sold like nobody’s business, showing that the right platform could sell anything. It’s no wonder that cult franchises, like Pikmin and Metroid, did so well, vastly outperforming their predecessors.

Does this mean the Switch doesn’t have its areas of improvement? No. Aside from online play being laggy, voice chat leaves much to be desired. I also wish true HD existed in handheld mode, and that the system wasn’t prone to scratching. The software and hardware isn’t cheap either, and the online emulation of older games is enough to drive people mad. Oh, and the Switch Lite having non-detachable controllers is a mistake.

But those are minor setbacks. Let’s face it: the Switch is a dream machine. It takes everything I loved about the Wii U, builds on it and eliminates most of its predecessor’s limitations. It’s also lightweight and easier on the hands. Most-importantly, however, it’s intuitive, which makes a difference. Here’s hoping Nintendo’s next console adds to what Nintendo’s learned!

Isn't It (Un)ironic?

Roughly three years ago, I critically examined a Christmas classic. Earlier this year, I followed that up with a takedown of a New Year’s Eve song. It’s only fitting that I complete the trifecta with a deconstruction of something I despise: “Ironic”, by Alanis Morissette. Keep in mind that I rarely despise songs, even trashy ones, so that should already be a red flag.

What’s “Ironic”? It’s a 1995 hit about situations Morissette deems “ironic”. In theory, this should be a no-brainer. Irony’s present everywhere in life, be it intentional or unintentional, so there’s plenty of material to work with. It helps that the tune’s also catchy, making it stand out. The only problem?

The lyrics.

Let’s start with a working definition. To quote Merriam-Webster, irony is:

“…[A] situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected.”

This is their second definition, FYI. Regardless, irony implies a contradiction of intent. To use a famous example, Donald Dean Summerville, the 53rd mayor of Toronto, had a massive heart attack and died during a hockey tournament promoting The Heart and Stroke Foundation. The incident was tragic, but also ironic. (It’s also an extreme example.)

Irony is easy to write about: a person having a heart attack at a charity event for heart health? That’s ironic. An organization advocating for the ethical treatment of animals while secretly euthanizing dogs? Cruel, but also ironic. A politician claiming to rid politics of corruption, only to be revealed to be corrupt? Obnoxious, but ironic.

Unfortunately, Morissette’s song misses the boat. To be fair, not all her scenarios are bad candidates in theory: a man too cautious to fly dying in the first plane he boards? Maybe. A traffic jam when you’re already late for work? Again, maybe. These are decent setups, but they lack the extra punch.

And then the chorus ruins everything by using clichés as ironies. I mean, “rain on your wedding day” is obnoxious, and I know people who’ve experienced it, but is it “ironic”? Not really. It’s more unfortunate, and it’s a really bad example. Additionally, ignoring free advice is stupid and short-sighted.

This is the problem with Morissette’s song: her scenarios, while strange, don’t fit the criteria for irony. Some, like the plane and the traffic jam, come close, but they’re incomplete. Because irony needs both a setup and a payoff. Like a joke, the punchline has to work to really land.

I’m not the first person to criticize Morissette’s song. Aside from radio stations refusing to air it following 9/11, it’s been chastised for not understanding “irony” frequently. In particular, Stephen Thomas Erwine called that out in his review. So it’s like flogging a dead horse now, especially 26 years later. It’s not even fair, honestly.

However, there’s actually one irony here that does land, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s the song’s title. “Ironic” could’ve been titled “Tragic” and still worked. It could’ve also been titled “Unfortunate”. It could’ve even been titled “Oh Crap Moments” and been on-the-nose, but…well, you get the picture.

Regardless, it was titled “Ironic”. And in having its name be “Ironic”, all while not containing irony, it qualifies by accident. That’s ironic. Which is shocking, frightening and really annoying for someone like myself, who majored in English in university. I should know, I’ve gotten the concept wrong many times!

So what now? I don’t know. The song’s been in the zeitgeist for decades, and it’s routinely played on Canadian airwaves. It also, like I said in the beginning, is really catchy. I may not like it, but I often find myself humming the chords from time to time. I guess it’s an ear-worm?

Yet it getting stuck in my head is a problem. “Baby It’s Cold Outside” has an infectious and upbeat charm that, outside of its lyrics, is fun to belt annually. “Imagine” has a hopeful message about world unity. “Ironic”, though? I’ve never gotten that, as much as I’ve tried. Ignoring its misuse of “ironic”, its lyrics aren’t even that inspired. This isn’t even a dig at Morissette, a woman who knew “My Humps” was parody-worthy.

Still, why is this the song she’s most remembered for? Why is this the one that routinely gets played? Why is it the one that made the billboards? And why is this, from her entire oeuvre, the most talked about? Why “Ironic”?

I have two theories. The cynical one is that Morissette isn’t that great a songwriter. Sure, her lyrics and tunes are “catchy”, but she lacks insight. “Ironic”, therefore, is easy to ridicule, a catchy ditty that’s fun to mock. But that’s underselling her, so I’m not convinced.

The optimistic one is that the song inspires hope. Sure, the lyrics are ridiculous. Yes, it doesn’t understand its own thesis statement. And true, it’s fun to mock. But it speaks to frustrations that occur in real life, ones we can all relate to. That’s more important than accuracy.

Does that mean I now like “Ironic”? No. The song’s awful! But I can respect it for what it’s attempting. It doesn’t work, but I admire its attempt. And that’s what counts.

Big and Small

I watched Dune.

It was interesting! Not amazing, and it felt incomplete, but I liked how it tackled imperialism. It’s also nice to see an inspiration for the Star Wars franchise not be panned. (I’m looking at you, John Carter!) So yes, definitely worth a recommendation.

Unfortunately, the movie’s existence has fed into resurgent toxicity. It’s not helped by several directors opening their mouths. These include Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve, both of whom believe you should watch a movie on an IMAX screen. That, according to them, is where they’re at their best. But are they?

I’m not one to judge preferences. Remember, I like The MCU! And I get the sentiment for wanting a theatre experience. There’s an energy to watching films with an audience: you can laugh when they laugh, cheer when they cheer, gasp when they gasp and cry when they cry. It’s something you don’t get alone.

So yes, I see where they’re coming from. What bothers me is when that’s matched with how it’s “the only way”. To quote Villeneuve from August of this year:

“Frankly, to watch Dune on a television, the best way I can compare it is to drive a speedboat in your bathtub. For me, it’s ridiculous. It’s a movie that has been made as a tribute to the big-screen experience.”

Like I said, far be it from me to criticize preferences. But insisting the only way to enjoy movies is in theatres bugs me. It assumes everyone can make it there, which is a big ask, and it implies that a movie doesn’t work in other formats. If the latter were true, many classics wouldn’t have survived the era of VHS. Yes, the format with piss-poor sound and image compression.

I’ve heard this before, though. I’ve heard that streaming is “killing cinema”. And I’ve heard that more people need to “watch movies in theatres”. I’ve heard these claims so frequently that it’s tiresome. So let’s do a mental exercise, shall we? Let me walk you through my cinema experience pre-COVID:

It begins days before I go to see the movie. Because I’m financially limited, I often read reviews in advance. If the reviews are strong, I’m interested. If not, I either avoid it, or wait until I have a free movie from the SCENE points I’ve accrued. I wouldn’t want to waste my money.

But let’s say I decide to see the film. I have to look for a date, time and location that works. Because I can’t always see something immediately, I need to block off part of my day. And because I can’t drive, I have to check the transit schedule. This could take up to an hour, and that ignores transit delays.

Okay, I’m at my destination. I now must walk to the actual theatre, climb the stairs and, depending on popularity, wait in a long line for tickets. (I know digital kiosks exist, but often there are lines there too.) Many of the other people are rowdy and annoying, and sometimes they block access to the line itself. It could take a while before I purchase the ticket, and occasionally the showing might even be sold out.

If all goes well, I pay for my overpriced ticket and make my way to, assuming I’m interested, the equally-overpriced concessions where-you guessed it-there’s another line of rowdy and annoying people. This also takes a while, leading to anxiety. I swipe my debit card, get my SCENE points and retrieve the concessions. Now it’s off to the ticket booth. Sounds simple enough, right?

But wait! I forgot to go to the bathroom! Now I have to ask an employee where the washrooms are, tuck away my concessions-unless I got popcorn, in which case I’m screwed-and head to the nearest stall. Assuming I’m not grossed out, I do my business and proceed to wash my hands with a dispenser that barely gives me soap and a tap that often doesn’t work. This doesn’t account for there being no paper towel, in which case I use the air dryer.

I finally get to the auditorium, find a seat at the back, because I don’t like the front, and wait for the previews. After what seems like forever, and more people pile in, I then am barraged with advertisements and car commercials before the trailers. And once the trailers, which take about 15 minutes, are over, I can finally enjoy myself for 2+ hours…assuming the lights from people’s phones, the loud noises of chairs, the interruptions of late-arrivals looking for seats and the sounds of kids and babies don’t pull me out of the experience.

If I’m being unfair, it’s to prove a point. I love the theatre! I used to go often before the pandemic! But I had to turn a blind eye to what came with that, and most of it wasn’t fun. I’m not alone, as theatre attendance has been dwindling over the last decade. And with streaming eliminating the hassle of the theatre experience, I’m not surprised that venues are in trouble.

So with all due respect to Denis Villeneuve, I don’t agree that the only way to experience a movie is in theatres. Does that mean streaming doesn’t have its own problems? No, and I’ve covered that before. But the trade-off’s noticeable, and that needs to be acknowledged here.

Besides, a movie’s true test is if it can be watched at home anyway. Remember, movies only run in cinemas for so long before they’re moved to streaming, where most of their viewing takes place. A movie has to endure that too. And if it can’t? Then it was never that great to begin with.

Ultimately, I don’t like the assertion that movies only work in theatres. If that makes me a heretic, so be it! I’ll live with that!

Little Miss Marvel

Ms. Marvel’s the Disney+ MCU show I’ve been looking forward to most. Not only is the lead Canadian, hence representation, she’s also young and not another white person. Additionally, her story reflects the youths’ experience, and she isn’t exclusively tied to previous lore. Like Kate Bishop in Hawkeye, Kamala Khan’s the future of the franchise. That’s exciting.

I say this in light of recent information. A picture of Ms. Marvel was recently leaked, and it’s…something. I like her costume a lot, but there’s one detail that rubbed me the wrong way: her fists are energy-based, as opposed to elastic. Considering that Kamala’s comic trait is stretching like silly putty, that’s really odd. It doesn’t help that early rumours suggest she’s a genie, which has rubbed other people the wrong way.

Now, I’m no expert on this controversy. I’m Jewish, so I lack the appropriate insight into why this is offensive. However, I’m disappointed that attempts at scrubbing Marvel characters of their Jewish roots-Spider-Man, Moon Knight, Scarlett Witch, to name a few-haven’t received as much backlash. (Neither has able-washing Professor X by having two able-bodied actors play him.) I guess Jews are no longer considered a minority in Hollywood?

Anyway, I don’t mean to demean the backlash. Making Kamala Khan into an energy genie, aside from being uncreative, isn’t the way to go. Genies lack agency, are slaves and serve as wish-fulfillment for others. Having the first Muslim super-heroine be one is a slap in the face. Or maybe it’s a punch?

Regardless, I’m disappointed. I’m also disappointed because I don’t know why the higher-ups felt this, of all the concepts they’ve executed thus far, was a deal-breaker. Why is Kamala Khan having stretchy hands bad? Is it “too silly”? Because The MCU has a talking raccoon and a giant tree that repeats its name constantly. It also has a green monster and a rock troll. This ignores the dozens of other weird choices. Stretchy hands aren’t even that weird considering Mr. Fantastic is making his way to The MCU soon.

Additionally, this feels like a step back for representation. The Mandarin, for example, was always going to be tough to adapt because of his racist history, yet Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings pulled it off. Ditto for M’baku in Black Panther. If The MCU could make these characters functional, then why go backwards with Kamala Khan? I don’t understand.

I wouldn’t be as disappointed if The MCU didn’t have a “too big for its own good” aura constantly looming over it. The franchise has constantly expanded, and while some entries have been lesser, it’s yet to completely collapse. Even Iron Fist and The Inhumans, arguably the weakest links, haven’t tipped the scales completely. It’s bad enough that this aura’s lurking without the added racism.

Additionally, if this fails, detractors will resume the revisionism they keep flaunting. It’s annoying even without the added tone-deafness, and having a legitimate issue would be unbearable! I remember the “Is it dead?” discourse that circulated with Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and how insufferable it was at the time. In both cases, the franchise rebounded quickly. I can only imagine how much worse it’d be if Ms. Marvel ends up being the project that tanks everything.

I’m not saying that because of the naysayers. I like The MCU! It has problems, but it’s also responsible for generating hype for comic book properties no one cared about in large numbers otherwise. (Most people thought Iron Man was a robot before Iron Man.) If Kamala Khan’s debut ends up a disaster, can you imagine the tarnished reputation? How many comic fans would be crushed by that? It may not matter to most of you, but for Muslim fans it’d be huge if their shot at representation was blown!

Now, does this change mean I’m no longer excited for Ms. Marvel? No! As stated earlier, this is a young, fresh character in a franchise with mostly white ones. Like Black Panther and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I’m hopeful that this’ll move The MCU in positive direction. Also, if any franchise deserves some trust by now, it’s The MCU! I doubt I’m alone there.

That doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, though. It’s one issue for Kamala’s fighting style to be changed to energy beams, even if elasticity might be “hard to do in live-action”. But it’s another to make her a genie and remove her agency. The former’s lame, but the latter’s insulting, and The MCU’s first Muslim super-heroine deserves better. She deserves the same respect Tony Stark had in 2008. Not getting that’s irritating and a missed opportunity.

So yeah, I’m unhappy, even if I’m not the best source for why. Does this mean Ms. Marvel will suck? Not necessarily, as I’ve seen lamer work before. Am I still excited? Yes, why wouldn’t I be? But that doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, assuming it’s legitimate (you never know). And if I have to justify why, well…I think I did a good job. I only hope I’m, once again, not alone.

The Bondian Legacy

I’ve been mixed about writing my thoughts on No Time to Die for almost a week. Not only because the movie left me with plenty to ponder, but also because my second piece on The Whitly-Verse was about Spectre. Since I trashed that film, I wasn’t sure I’d be ready for positivity about another Daniel Craig James Bond movie. But I’ll give it a go anyway. Be prepared for spoilers.

I’m not the biggest fan of the James Bond franchise. The early movies, while well-made, have aged badly, while many of the later entries are so bonkers they lost any semblance of coherency. Even GoldenEye, which was fine, was followed by three really boring sequels, and I was turned off again with Die Another Day. The only ones I’ve attached to were Daniel Craig’s, and even then two were garbage. I think it’s because Craig’s Bond was the first time I felt like the character was more than a cold-blooded killer. He was human, wounded and tragic, three traits I never thought I’d see.

I should elaborate on that last part. Craig’s tenure has been hit-or-miss, that much I can’t deny, but at its best it’s always been tragic. Not because Bond himself witnesses someone close to him die, but because the character has allowed himself vulnerability. In Casino Royale, Bond falls for someone who breaks his heart and drowns. In Skyfall, he witnesses M, someone he respected as a maternal figure, die in his arms. And now, in No Time to Die, Bond has reconcile his desire for a regular life with the enemies his job creates, causing him to sacrifice his own life.

I mention these three movies because they made me cry. James Bond has 25 canonical movies, all ranging in quality, but these were the only ones to move me emotionally. You can take away the scores, the (mostly) brilliant theme songs and the action, but if I don’t care about the hero, well…what’s the point? You might as well make James Bond into John McClane, and even then that undersells the latter. I mean that wholeheartedly.

What made Craig’s Bond run so interesting, even when his movies were frustrating, was that he evolved the persona beyond what was expected. Sean Connery started it, but he was the suave gentleman of The Cold War Era. George Lazenby made him into a tragic lover, but not much was explored. Roger Moore’s take was way too cartoony, while Timothy Dalton was too extreme. And then there was Pierce Brosnan, who fit the role well, but never took significant risks.

Daniel Craig’s Bond took a little of everything that worked from his predecessors: the suaveness of Connery, the tragedy of Lazenby, the silliness of Moore, the extremeness of Dalton and the tailor fit appearance of Brosnan. He also made that into someone I could relate to. For the first time, I actually could see the thought process behind the man. He wasn’t a prop, but rather a person who had a lot to juggle. And his movies were aware of this, with all of them tying together.

I say that with no irony. Take the Bond-ness out of Craig’s portrayal, and you still have a satisfying story about an assassin whose attempts at opening up keep ending badly. This is a man who’s seen literal Hell, yet keeps wanting connections. He’s witnessed people he cared about die-his parents, his girlfriend, his mother-figure, his best friend-and while it’s hurt him, he hasn’t given up that need for intimacy. He’s human. And I didn’t get that with the previous iterations.

It helps that Craig’s had excellent people to bounce off of. These individuals have felt equally human, and in some cases received given arcs of their own. This is especially true with Madelaine Swann, whose backstory’s opens No Time to Die. I was shocked by that when I sat down in the theatre for the first time since March of 2020: like the opening of Casino Royale, I’d never seen this before from James Bond. Was I watching the right movie?

In hindsight, it was intentional. Craig’s Bond established itself as unique out the gate, and having a side-character be the focus continued that. It helped that this was the longest timeframe of any Bond movie before the opening credits, which were complimented by Billie Eilish’s haunting, soft-spoken vocals. It’s a bit of waiting, but it’s worth it. Because like Casino Royale’s black-and-white opening, this was leading to something important.

The kicker is that this is the finale to Craig’s tenure. And he did that gloriously! Not only were there fireworks (or explosions, in this case), there was also an emotional hook. This Bond is a tired Bond. He’s had enough pain and suffering to last him a lifetime, and he wants no more. It’ll mean breaking someone else’s heart for a change, but if it ends the pain, so be it. Like a wounded deer, he’s ready to be put out of his misery.

I also like how this movie delved into Bond’s parental side. For the first time in Bond history, he’s allowed to be a dad. I wasn’t fully-sold on Matilda, I didn’t feel like she had much to do, but her interactions with Craig were genuine anyway. And considering how young she was, and how hard it is to get good performances from child actors, that’s impressive. It also added emotional stakes outside of saving the world, something we’ve seen ad nauseam by now.

Is this to be the best of the Craig era? No. Aside from minor pacing issues at the beginning, as well as an underdeveloped villain and a plot MacGuffin that needed consistency, the film feels over-ambitious. It not only has to cap off everything, it also has to wrap up the Vesper Lynd story and the Spectre thread. It does an admirable job, but even at nearly three hours it falls somewhat short.

Yet I enjoyed it anyway. It lacks the freshness of Casino Royale or the meta-introspection of Skyfall, but No Time to Die is still a satisfying conclusion to a mostly-great run. It also has one of the most-satisfying “black woman kills white man” moments to-date. Seriously, my entire theatre applauded at that point, myself included! And it was earned!

The debate over Bond never ends: which one’s the best? Who’s the best Bond? Which movie has the best theme? Who should play the character next? Personally, the only question I’m interested in has already been answered, but I also don’t care. Craig’s Bond was moving in a way other Bonds weren’t, and if that ends up as a one-off, so be it!

The Kaiju Universe Problem

I finally watched Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

I’d been putting it off because the reviews weren’t great when it debuted. But since it was going to be pulled from Netflix, I figured I’d give it a shot. And I enjoyed it! It was a heartfelt, well-written drama about a family coping with loss that-wait, it’s about monster battles? Okay then!

I’ve been hesitant about MCU-esque copycats for a while. Aside from most being terribly interconnected, the films usually suffer from bad writing. This has also been true of the “Kaiju Universe”, starring Godzilla. While the entries so far have been entertaining, updating Toho’s Kaiju boxing matches and making them contemporary, they’ve done little to impress as stories. If it weren’t for the human characters, they probably wouldn’t even work.

Let me explain.

Back when I was young, a movie didn’t have to be good for me to see it. I was so easily entertained that I could “check my brain at the door”. It wasn’t until adulthood that my outlook changed. Nowadays, with exceptions, I need more than mindless entertainment. I need good character interactions too.

The “Kaiju Universe” is one I’d have probably liked more as a kid. It has big monsters with cool designs destroying stuff! But while I can appreciate the fight scenes, especially with their gorgeous cinematography, I also don’t think that’s enough for a full-length feature. Contrary to what Geoff Thew pointed out, and I mean no disrespect to him, a movie needs more. It also needs something weighty.

On some level, these movies have that: Godzilla had an army vet trying to live up the expectations of his late-father and mother. Kong: Skull Island had, among other subplots, a Vietnam War vet trying to reconcile the war’s failure with defeating King Kong, whom he sees as a chance at redemption. And now Godzilla: King of the Monsters has a fractured family trying to reconcile their relationship with the Kaiju. I’m sure Godzilla VS. Kong has something similar, but I haven’t watched it yet.

These movies have human drama. And let’s face it, when done well it’s compelling. That said, it’s not enough here. Remove the Kaiju fights and keep the human drama, and you’d still have decent storytelling. Remove the human drama and keep the Kaiju fights, however, and you’d end up with mediocrity. This is despite the Kaiju having distinct personalities.

I feel bad for writing that! For all the beautifully-shot action and excellent visuals, they feel generic and same-y to dozens of other action movies. We’ve seen giant monsters fighting before. We’ve also seen scenery being destroyed before. And we’ve seen them in tandem as well. It also doesn’t help that, like Captain Midnight mentioned in one of his YouTube videos, we can barely make out what’s going on most of the time because of the blurred visuals and nighttime lighting.

There’s a chance some of you will be offended by my sentiments; after all, aren’t the Kaiju fights what people paid for? Maybe…but you also need the human weight. There’s a reason why Godzilla’s the only Toho production to receive nearly-unanimous critical praise: the human dynamics, not Godzilla himself, were the focus. It’s also why Gareth Edwards’ film was better received than the Godzilla movie that followed, as he focused on that as well.

It sounds counterintuitive to praise “generic human writing” over “Kaiju”, but I stand firm in my stance. I honestly think that, if anything, Godzilla: King of the Monsters could’ve had more of it! But I can’t lie when I say that human interactions are more interesting than action beats alone. Even The MCU, for all its flaws, understands that. And it’d be great if the emotional weight could be acknowledged, as opposed to dismissed.

I don’t want to belittle anyone who disagrees with me here. I know some of you would be perfectly happy with senseless Kaiju fights, and think that the human drama’s the boring part. If you get off on Godzilla ripping off an enemy’s head, or witnessing King Kong and Godzilla duking it out for supremacy, by all means go ahead! But while I can appreciate the technical showmanship, in the end I need more. I need a reason to care about the characters.

It’s tough to parse the mixed sentiments on these movies. Some, like Bob Chipman, prefer the chaotic, dumb fun because it harkens back to the cheaply-made versus matches of the Toho era films. Others, like Captain Midnight, need more than that. Personally, I lean more to the latter, but I also respect the former. If that’s makes me a heretic in the eyes of fans, then so be it!

At the least, I can safely say I prefer these movies to Pacific Rim. Sorry, Guillermo del Toro fans!