The Witching Hour: Episode 39 – Genre Storytelling in ‘Avengers: Endgame’ & Netflix’s Best Horror Series
Quentin Tarantino Recut the ‘Hateful Eight’ as a Netflix Miniseries with 20 Minutes of New Footage
‘Us’ Blu-ray Details Promise Six Deleted Scenes & a Bounty of Behind-the-Scenes Features
I attended my first Comic Con as a fan, not a writer - buying a pass and going to panels just for the sake of enjoying them, not because I had to have an article about their content. This was in 2006, and while I can't remember everything I went to, I distinctly remember sitting in the audience as Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, and (sniff) Edgar Wright talked about their plans to bring Iron Man, Hulk, and Ant-Man to the screen, respectively. But it wasn't the idea of three more comic book-themed movies coming along that was the big news - this was the summer of Superman Returns and X3 after all - it was the plan (hinted at by Kevin Feige, a name that didn't mean a lot to most of the people in the room* at the time) to make an eventual Avengers movie where those characters would cross over after debuting in their own films.
Luckily for them it seems to have worked out OK - a shared movie universe that has stretched across 22 films and counting, breaking all kinds of box office records and earning unparalleled numbers of fans around the world. It was a plan that some said would never work (there was brief talk of making the first Avengers movie "Iron Man 3" after the non Iron Man films failed to make the same kind of money) and then became a template for so many other franchises: the DCEU is the most (in)famous of course, but James Wan's Conjuring has spunoff three separate franchises already with no signs of slowing down, and the Fast & Furious movies are giving it a shot this summer with Hobbs & Shaw. And then there's the Dark Universe... oh, wait.
Actually, the Dark Universe is a good point of reference, because it was based on what was one of the first attempts at this kind of shared world. In the 1940s, after pumping out a few sequels to their earlier hits (Dracula and Frankenstein primarily), Universal Studios had the idea to combine two of them with Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, and its success paved the way for a few more "Monster Rally" films, where Dracula and some of their other characters popped up, albeit sometimes with different actors. It was pretty slapdash in retrospect, not to mention somewhat confusing in the case of Lon Chaney Jr., as he took over the role of Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster in those respective franchises at different times, only to come back as Wolf Man with new actors in those roles when the characters met up. The films aren't classics by any means, and the interactions are sometimes obnoxiously brief, but the general idea of all of these worlds existing as one was pretty exciting.
But I came to those late in life - I think I was in my twenties before I saw a classic Universal Monster movie in its entirety. No, the film that blew my mind with the idea that two separate movies that I saw might actually take place in a shared cinematic world was Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys, a 1993 Full Moon effort that combined three of their previous movies: Dollman (1991), Demonic Toys, and Bad Channels (both 1992). At 13, this seemed like the coolest thing in the world, opening my ill-informed mind up to the possibilities of things like John McClane teaming up with Riggs and Murtaugh, or Michael Myers fighting Jason Voorhees (Freddy vs. Jason had already been teased, but then and now I still believe Jason coming to Haddonfield would make a more exciting battle). It just seemed like something that couldn't be done; I mean, we already had Superman and Batman movies from the same studio, and they didn't ever reference each other, but somehow Full Moon president Charles Band had figured it out.
Running an economical 61 minutes with credits, the film picks up more or less as a direct sequel to Demonic Toys, with that film's hero Judith Gray (Tracy Scoggins) obsessed with the idea that the killer toys she took care of in the first film have somehow returned. One night her theory is proven correct, though her attempts to take them out again lead to her suspension on account of looking like a crazy person shooting at toys. Meanwhile, Brick "Dollman" Bardo (Thomerson) finds out about the existence of another 13 inch tall human (Melissa Behr, returning as Ginger from Bad Channels) and makes his way to her to offer some advice about being small (and then, five minutes later, they hop into the kitchen drawer she uses as a bed). Judith finds out about their existence and realizes that tiny toy-sized humans are the exact thing she needs to take out the murderous toys and clear her name, and so the trio sets off to the toy factory, preparing for battle.
As with the first Avengers and now the newer entries (Age of Ultron didn't add any feature characters to the mix), there's a good chance someone saw this crossover because they were a fan of one of the three movies and hadn't even seen the others. Indeed, to this day, I've never seen Bad Channels, so when Ginger shows up it means nothing to me - just as it meant nothing for Hulk or Hawkeye to show up in Avengers to someone who had only watched the two Iron Man movies (based on the box office of those Phase 1 movies, it seems that could have been a lot of people). The difference is that Marvel's string-pullers care not one iota about giving newcomers a bit of a primer of who anyone is when they show up in a big teamup movie like Infinity War; outside of the occasional gag that acknowledges that some films don't cross as much as others (Bruce Banner's confusion over the fact that they "have an Ant-Man now" in that film is comic gold), the filmmakers always just assume we know who's who and don't waste time re-explaining it, because that would be very dull to the folks like me who see all of these things on opening weekend.
But none of those guys are as notoriously thrifty as Charles Band! As I mentioned this movie only runs 61 minutes, and 10-15 of those are spent on flashback footage to the respective three films. After a quick hello from Dollman, it presents the climax of Demonic Toys to bring folks up to speed, and then later when Dollman meets Ginger, they both offer the other (read: the audience) a Cliff's Notes version of their own films. So along with the credits, there's only about 40 minutes' worth of new footage in this (barely a) film, a maneuver Band would use on some of the Puppet Master sequels, as well (and presumably others; I have little love for anything they put out these days that I've managed to catch and so I haven't exactly kept tabs on the likes of Killjoy). Even though Marvel had a reputation for being cheap in the old days, they never saved a few bucks by having Thor explain his history to the others by stopping Avengers cold to present a lengthy flashback sequence and eat up some of the runtime.
That said, Band did have the stones (heh) to do something the Avengers movie didn't: kill off one of the main heroes (all due respect to Phil Coulson). Scoggins' Judith is surprisingly killed off around forty minutes in (so, the end of act 2!), leaving Dollman and Ginger to do battle without their much bigger partner's help. It's something that horror franchises can (should?) do in a way a comic book movie franchise really can't, because the villains are the real stars here, and it's far more important that the evil dolls come back again and again, as there can always be other heroes to fight them. But still, given Scoggins' then-penchant for appearing in DTV genre fare, it seems kind of ballsy to off her just as the universe was starting to expand - she could have become a tiny monster killing expert and hunted the Puppet Master dolls! Instead, according to the Videozone behind the scenes piece, Band planned to have Tim Thomerson's Dollman cross into their other franchises, using him as a sort of James Bond type who would have all of these crazy, presumably continuity-lite adventures fighting monsters and aliens we had already met in their own films.
Alas, that didn't happen for whatever reason, so this experiment didn't really pan out the way Marvel's did. It's a shame though - it could have been an easy way for Band to retain interest in the other Full Moon properties over the years - I'd maybe watch an Evil Bong movie if Thomerson showed up as Dollman again. Instead, the two men just focused on their (unrelated) Trancers series, the Demonic Toys got two (AWFUL) other movies much much later (one a crossover with Puppet Master, though Band had nothing to do with it and it's not considered canon), and Bad Channels has never been revived in any capacity. So it turned out more like the DCEU than the MCU, but I guess that's kind of fitting when you consider who wrote the original Demonic Toys in the first place. Still, it was a fun and relatively ambitious idea for its time, and the movie itself is kind of enjoyable even today (it certainly has better FX than any Full Moon release in the past 15-20 years), so even if the universe didn't really continue I still consider it a success. I hadn't seen it since I was 13 or 14, and expected it to be unwatchable, but had a good time with Baby Oopsie Daisy's cheesy one liners, the legitimately impressive oversized set effects, and Thomerson's laid-back hero antics. And I discovered this in exactly one third of the time it took to watch Endgame!
*A much tinier room than you'd probably imagine - it wasn't even Hall H. In fact I'm pretty sure I was only in there because I wanted to see the following panel. Crazy times...
‘Game of Thrones’ Cinematographer Offers Pro Tips on How to Watch the Super-Dark Show
Jason Rothenberg on Season 6 of ‘The 100’, Time Jumps, and Planning Ahead for Season 7
Goes to show that a movie doesn’t need sweeping aspirations to be great at what it wants to do.
"The book was better" is a phrase heard often in conversations about book-to-film adaptations. "Don't judge a book by its movie" is another common jab. While we've all uttered some version of this sentiment at one point or another, there have been those rare occasions when the opposite is true. As a lifelong bookworm and cinephile, I've discovered that whether I read the book before or after seeing the movie can have a profound influence on my enjoyment of the story across both mediums. In this column, I’ll be checking out old and new adaptations to further explore both sides of that experience. In the process, I hope to unveil how these two vastly different mediums work together to tell the same story, from cover to credits.
---
“She had the idea that he had…come from nowhere…and belonged nowhere.”
- Joyce Carol Oates, Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?
I first read Joyce Carol Oates’ unsettling short story, Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?, in college where we analyzed teenage protagonist, Connie’s, sexual awakening and the strange and foreboding encounter she has with a predatory man at her door named Arnold Friend. Oates mixes fiction and reality with a small dose of the supernatural in this narrative about a fifteen-year-old girl whose natural curiosity about boys and sex captures the unwanted attention of a much older stranger. Often described as an allegory for a young girl’s initiation into womanhood, the loss of innocence, or an encounter with death or the devil, it may seem simplistic on the surface, but the conversation between Connie and Arnold Friend is layered with symbolism and a sense of dread, all building to a climax that will shake you to your core.
In the 1985 film adaptation, Smooth Talk, Connie (Laura Dern) is a self-absorbed, boy crazy fifteen-year-old, constantly at odds with her mother (Mary Kay Place), who favors her duteous older sister, June (Elizabeth Berridge). Connie spends her evenings sneaking around with her friends and making out with boys she meets at a local drive-in restaurant. She initially finds all the attention intoxicating, until the night she captures the eye of a stranger in a gold convertible covered with cryptic writing. While her parents are away at a barbecue, two men arrive at Connie's house and she recognizes the driver, Arnold Friend (Treat Williams), as the guy from the restaurant. Curious and charmed by the charismatic stranger who appeals to her sense of vanity and desire, Connie slowly realizes he isn’t who he claims to be and grows increasingly terrified. When she refuses to go for a ride with him, Friend becomes more forceful, threatening to harm her family, all while maintaining a disturbing level of confidence in his ability to coerce her into doing what he wants. Eventually, Connie is compelled to leave the safety of her house and succumb to his demands.
Written in 1966, Oates based antagonist, Arnold Friend, on a real-life serial killer by the name of Charles Schmid. Known as “The Pied Piper of Tucson,” Schmid was a cult hero among the teenagers in town, said to have charmed them into keeping the murders he was prone to boasting about a secret. A bizarre individual, he’d paint his face with white pancake makeup and draw on a mole to make himself appear more sinister. Self-conscious about his height, Schmid would stuff newspapers and flattened cans into his cowboy boots to appear taller, which made him unsteady on his feet. Oates incorporated many of these quirks into Arnold Friend, gradually revealing them through Connie’s awareness of things that seem off about his appearance and demeanor. The film deviates from these exterior details to focus on the dialogue and mounting tension in the unforgettable scene, directed with precision by Joyce Chopra and featuring exceptional performances from Laura Dern and Treat Williams.
Admittedly, up until the climactic encounter that is the majority of Oates’ story, Smooth Talk is your run-of-the-mill coming-of-age movie. It fills in the blanks with typical teenage fare, depicting Connie’s discord with her family and her reckless pursuit of male attention, barely acknowledging the otherworldly atmosphere of the source material. Still, the moment Arnold Friend pulls up Connie’s driveway, you’re ensnared in the genius of one of our most prolific writers. Nearly a word for word recreation, the scene is a master class in building tension through dialogue. Gradually, Dern’s innocent young girl is coaxed from the safety of her house by Williams’ beguiling and intimidating charm.
Oates originally titled the story “Death and the Maiden” before deciding on a more symbolic and vague approach to telling the tale. A format that has inspired countless interpretations of the character Arnold Friend, not to mention the cryptic messages on his car. Many think of Friend as a supernatural entity, like death or the devil, while others read him more literally as a serial rapist and murderer. Either way, it’s clear that his intent is to lure Connie to a secluded location and have his way with her. While these supernatural aspects are more prominent in the story than the film, there is some suggestion that Friend has certain “powers,” considering he knows intimate details about Connie and her family.
The messages painted on Friend’s car – including the numbers 33, 19, 17 – are also open to interpretation. Friend tells Connie the numbers are a “secret code,” never revealing what they actually mean. Some claim the numbers equaling 69 makes them representative of Friend’s sexual deviancy, while others believe they point to the Bible verse Judges 19:17, because of its connection to the story’s title: “When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, ‘Where are you going? Where did you come from?’” Friend uses other hidden messages, like lyrics to popular songs as a way to disguise his age and relate to Connie and her generation’s obsession with music. Music is a constant in both versions, often portraying Connie’s mood or emotional state-of-mind. Oates even dedicated the story to Bob Dylan, citing his song “It’s All Over Now Baby Blue” as inspiration: “The vagabond who's rapping at your door / Is standing in the clothes that you once wore / Strike another match, go start anew / And it's all over now, baby blue.”
In the end, Connie goes with Arnold Friend as if under some sort of spell, and we never learn what becomes of her. But the film creates an ending for her, as if choosing to believe it was all a dream or symbolic of her loss of virtue. It’s the cryptic layers in Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? that make it such a compelling and unforgettable story. The adaptation may sacrifice some of the more mystical allusions, but the dark reality is that people like Arnold Friend exist in the world. It's a scenario parents have been warning their daughters about since the dawn of time. A warning typically met with a roll of teenage eyes, but Oates makes the nightmare a reality, mixing true terror with fiction to convey the all too real dangers of growing up female and the inevitable end of innocence.
‘Sonic the Hedgehog’: 36 Images from the Trailer Will Make You Wonder Why Sonic Has Human Teeth
A grand total of ninety million American dollars went into the production of Sonic the Hedgehog, an adaptation of the popular video game series about a anthropomorphized blue mammal capable of running at sound-barrier-breaking speeds. Today, the first trailer for this film has surfaced online, and the design of its central character has left some wondering where that money went.
Voiced by Larry King guest extraordinaire Ben Schwartz, this new Sonic plumbs the uncanny valley with the reckless abandon of a bungee jumper, the character’s humanoid teeth and defined musculature clashing violently with his soulless, digitized eyes. Maybe it’s the reams upon reams of fan-made erotica tarnishing Sonic’s legacy, but something about him seems off.
In his big Hollywood debut, Sonic does battle with the sinister, mustache-twiddling Doctor Robotnik (Jim Carrey, in an increasingly rare studio comedy appearance) and befriends kindly Green Hills sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden). Pretty standard good-and-evil stuff, with the obligatory squadron of flat-topped military men waiting at the ready to blast an unfamiliar creature to smithereens. Must be the King Kong Regiment.
To the inscrutably-selected strains of “Gangsta’s Paradise,” our Sonic runs circles around his nemeses, his hyperspeed visually represented by putting the rest of the world in slow motion while he moves normally. Blockbuster aficionados may remember this striking technique being previously used to great dramatic effect in X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Directed by first-timer Jeff Fowler and with a screenplay credited to five different writers, the film comes from less-than-auspicious origins. But kids don’t usually get hung up on nightmarish CGI in the way that adults do. It sure didn’t slow down the Polar Express.
The post Gotta go fast to watch the new Sonic The Hedgehog trailer appeared first on Little White Lies.
It is widely accepted truth those among us who don’t self-identify as insane that the 1990 film Pretty Woman is one of the most execrable artworks ever forged in Beelzebub’s furnace. Indeed, a sulphurous tinge rises to the back of the throat when even broadly referring to this film as a piece of art.
Jonathan Levine’s scattershot comedy Long Shot attempts to right past wrongs by offering a gender-flipped version of Pretty Woman, in which the woman is the high roller, the man is the prostitute and prostitution is independent political journalism. And yet it does so in the most cloying and placatory of terms, as if it’s slapping Pretty Woman’s face and squeezing its ass with the other. It chides it while finding reasons to give Pretty Woman the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a nostalgic relic of a more tragically unhip era.
Seth Rogen plays Fred Flarsky, a militant left wing investigative hack for a Brooklyn alt weekly who is remarkably similar to the real life Seth Rogen. He tosses in the towel when his outlet is subsumed by a corporate media conglomerate run by vulgar tycoon Parker Wembley (Andy Serkis). Lucky for him, the secretary of state of the USA, affiliated to party unknown (or unmentioned), Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), just happened to be his old childhood crush, and they bump into one another at a shiny-floored wildlife benefit.
From across the room, she spies a seductive sparkle in his booze-addled eyes, despite the fact that he seems to make a habit of humiliating himself in public. But for this hirsute goon, she will turn the other cheek and nuzzle him to her governmental breast, where the prospect of him being able to rekindle his teenage sexual yearnings is not actually a long shot at all – she is very much warm for his form.
The question, then, is whether the successful, principled woman will decide to nurture her romance with this shell-suited man-boy at the expense of her professional future, or sack him off at the first sign of success. We are told that, in the fickle world of politics, no-one will accept a bearded Jewish man in high office He joins her on an extensive world tour to funny-up her speeches, and learns that his strenuous political intractability will never get things done – and if Charlotte was not employing some romantic flexibility of her own, he would be on the scrap heap double time.
In the spirit of the mile-a-minute life of a multi-tasking politico, Long Shot takes on more than it can handle with any real depth. Superficial is the word, especially its shockingly slapdash depiction of a political world which encompasses about six people. It feels like a film based on a few half-remembered episodes of The West Wing rather than the grimmer-than-grim reality we see day in, day out. It starts to get interesting when it arrives at the idea of embracing political compromise and seeking a shared middle ground, even in these hyper partisan times, but ends up screaming it at the camera.
We putter into the final act and pray this doesn’t descend into an inevitable will she/won’t she snap decision that ends up with some kind of city-wide chase sequence, especially as this film also professes to about remaining principled in the face of malevolent corporate interests. But Long Shot, sadly, refuses to practice what it preaches. In the final scene, Pretty Woman can be seen in the background, laughing victoriously.
The post Long Shot appeared first on Little White Lies.
Documentaries about the future prospects of our planet have, by necessity, become increasingly alarming of late. Yet it’s taken a national treasure like Sir David Attenborough to raise the alarm for the wider populous – and big business – for them to sit up and take note. Finally, we are all now having to consider our use of plastic and what it does to our oceans.
This new film from eco-friendly outfit Patagonia joins a wider chorus of environmental concerns, here focusing on the plight of wild salmon off the west cost of the US. For years, farmed fishing ‘hatcheries’ were viewed as a solution to preserving wild fish populations affected by dam building and rerouted rivers. Yet the reality of dwindling numbers in the oceans points to a manmade disaster born out of corporate hubris that defies logic.
Director Josh “Bones” Murphy’s film explores how these hatcheries actually reduce wild populations dramatically, since the farm-generated, often-mutated fish aggressively fight their wild counterparts for habitat. As a result, the rich nutrients from a wild fish’s carcass which would usually feed back into the ecosystem are being lost at an alarming rate.
Murphy’s film unpacks a case that’s been out in the public domain for nearly 40 years. When Mt St Helens erupted in 1981, wild salmon populations, initially thought destroyed by the lava, actually shot up as a result. As the fish farming industry has grown around it, so those populations have dramatically dropped. The message is simple. Nature doesn’t destroy its own. Only man can do that.
A range of talking heads – from environmentalists to tribal elders to keen fishermen – expand on the issues and frustrations their communities face, when dealing with a problem that involves government agencies, big business and tax-payer-funded schemes that are clearly not working. The corporations, not surprisingly, go on the offensive to defend their position.
Further still, the plight of wild salmon has a very real knock-on effect for communities reliant on them for survival – both in the western states of Washington, Oregon and northern California, and in areas of Northern Europe like Norway. Yurok elders share their exasperation at the situation. Their tribe’s intrinsic relationship with salmon is illustrated by way of bespoke animation. Without the fish, the tribe believe they are doomed.
There isn’t much to celebrate at this point, although a legislative ray of hope signals there may yet be a light at the end of the tunnel. Following protests that attracted concerned locals from all walks of life, government passed a series of bills banning the use of open-farming hatcheries in Washington state by 2021, thereby reversing further pollution of wild fish populations. It’s a positive, vital first step. But clearly, there is much work yet to be done.
Appropriately, the big question – that is, what world are we going to leave for our children? – is left to the Yurok people themselves, on the front line of the dwindling salmon population. They may have survived the horror of western ‘settlement’, yet could still be wiped out by a more insidious fate. Attenborough may not be on hand to help push this out to the masses, but their powerful and timely message adds to the need for generational change in positions of power, which clearly can’t come soon enough. The year 2020 may yet offer some hope.
The post A new documentary exposes the devastating reality of fish farming appeared first on Little White Lies.
‘The Society’ Trailer: The Kids Are Not Alright in Netflix’s Supernatural Thriller Series
We Made Seth Rogen & Charlize Theron Tell Us Which Secretaries Of State They’re Attracted To
The Division did not launch well. Visually and aurally, it was top-notch; narratively and ideologically, it was grim and inhumane; in gameplay, it was shallow and repetitive. While its essentially fascist themes never changed, Ubisoft gradually patched the Tom Clancy quasi-MMO into something with great replayability and depth.
Those learnings are clear in The Division 2. While it’s still a muddled melange of mixed messages, it’s also an extremely well-built online RPG, full of things to do, see, and mostly shoot. It’s absolutely not for everyone, and it’s probably not for me, but for the game’s core audience, it’s a handsome sequel with handsomer prospects ahead.
This time, the post-plague military-police action is transplanted from frosty New York to sweaty Washington, DC. Ubisoft says The Division 2 isn’t political, but the introductory video’s gun-worship is in itself a political statement - as is the fact that the fractured military government makes its home in the White House, while the Capitol and other government buildings are occupied by gangs. Maybe none of that was intended to “say” anything, but it all does.
If nothing else, The Division 2 is a testament to how hard it is to establish consistent thematic clarity across multiple studios. Clearly, someone had something to say making in-game museum exhibits discussing manifest destiny and Vietnam. However, they probably aren’t the same someone who wrote a cliched Clancy narrative around assassinations, betrayal, and a private military coup, and filled those exhibits with fun-fun-fun gunfire.
D.C. in summer is unpleasantly muggy to begin with, but this version is truly repellent, if enticingly littered with pickups and environmental storytelling. The usual post-apocalyptic rules apply - busted-ass buildings, abandoned vehicles, cityscapes reclaimed by flora and (tragically unpattable) fauna - but this particular narrative adds its own twists. Thanks to the plague originally hitting in winter, the city’s littered with incongruous leftover Christmas decorations, even as it’s become a beautifully-rendered swampy mess of stagnant water, dust clouds, and insects. This city has a distinct flavour, and that flavour is rotting trash.
The actual shooting still feels tinny and imprecise, but it’s almost a secondary mechanic. The Division is all about tactical positioning, using a damn near best-in-class cover system. Look around while in cover and pathing lines appear, offering routes to nearby cover positions, and a single button press will take you along those routes. In practice, the game plays almost like a realtime XCOM, especially in its heavy reliance on teamwork. The various special abilities available - turrets, drones, seeker mines, healing nanobots, and so on - can synergise with other players’, especially when those players are positioned in tactically useful spots. Without co-op help, it’s often difficult to best the flanking-heavy AI.
The Division 2 improves in leaps and bounds over its predecessor in its range of activities. There’s so much to do, so many different progression paths to follow, that it quickly becomes overwhelming, especially given its confusing menu and quest-tracking system. Each region of the city has main-path missions, settlements to rebuild, side missions, collectibles, spontaneous events, “control points” that track factions’ influence across the map, and more. Missions of all sizes boast full voice acting, story implications, and unique environments, most emphasising holding ground and rebuilding civilisation. Even the side missions have narrative throughlines. And nearly all activities can be started in-world, without encountering a discrete loading screen.
That includes the Dark Zones, PvPvE regions all about nicking loot from enemies in infected areas and extracting it via helicopter before enemies - or other players - nick it back. This time, there are multiple Dark Zones, each with slightly different playing conditions. The Dark Zones remain The Division’s most unique gameplay feature, and with expanded activities within them, they’ve become better - even with a somewhat split player base. Plus, for endgame players, there are opportunities to jump in without level-normalised gear, so you can put your hours of grinding to use.
Curiously, The Division 2 also adds a more traditional multiplayer activity, called Conflict, that takes place on contained maps and follows fairly routine game modes. You access Conflict through a menu, go through a sometimes-arduous matchmaking process, then spawn and respawn as your team attempts to defeat the other. It’s no worse than any standard multiplayer mode, but oddly, The Division’s core mechanics feel out of place in it. Placing turrets and drones feels broken in modes built around the player as the deliverer and recipient of damage. Tactical cover and movement feels too slow in a timed, corralled multiplayer deathmatch. It’s odd, and one of the few elements that seems like an afterthought.
No matter how many activities live games boast, they eventually run out, at which point the accumulation of loot becomes the endgame. The Division 2 suffers from the same inherent issue its predecessor did: slightly better-specced real-world guns, or new fucking kneepads, are not enthralling goals. Weapon perks, character specialisations, and a vastly-improved mod system make the loot a little more interesting, but the metagame is frankly dull. I’m not sure what more can be done with this IP - fellow online loot-shooter Destiny’s universe of space wizards has myriad possibilities for creative loot design, but a real(ish)-world military shooter can only support so many ideas. At least the activities get remixed pleasingly after the story concludes, with higher difficulties and a new faction that lends the game a faintly sci-fi flavour. It’s Boston Dynamics-style sci-fi, though.
The true question is how the game will play and evolve going forward. Ubisoft and Massive have learned a lot from the first Division - and if their post-game support is anything like before, patches and new content will be forthcoming and thoughtful. Your enjoyment is largely dependent on whether you can handle the regular time investment, and equally as importantly, whether your friends can. The Division 2 is playable alone, but it’s really built for multiplayer, and despite the presence of in-game matchmaking stations, multiplayer is best with friends. Obviously.
Ultimately, whether you’ll dig The Division 2 comes down to whether you’re keen to spend extended periods in a grimy US capital with a bunch of military grunts. If that’s your thing, The Division 2 will absolutely satisfy you - it’s well-made and fulfills that particular role-playing fantasy. But if you think that setting might get old, well...it will. When The Division launched, it had a single viable competitor: Destiny. Now, the field is more crowded. Ubisoft’s live-FPS is one of the best-designed mechanically - but for me, and maybe for you, the IP surrounding it is an absolute turnoff. Blame the Tom Clancy brand, I guess.
Avengers: Endgame didn’t quite put a period on the run-on sentence that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe like its title might lead you to believe. Such things cannot end, lest the world go hungry for giant, gaping holes in the sky belching out spaceships. The question on the minds of Marvel fans everywhere is no longer “how will it end?” Now, it’s “how will it continue?” Tony Stark is dead. Steve Rogers is collecting Super Soldier Social Security. Bruce Banner has a burnt hot dog for an arm. Thor went to space to find himself like a college sophomore in Barcelona. Black Widow sacrificed herself for the Soul Stone. The very idea of “The Avengers” was so wrapped up in the specific characters brought together to save the world that it seems premature or even borderline sacreligious to broach the subject of how best to carry on this extremely lucrative brand. Iron Man’s corpse isn’t even cold yet.
Alas, the show must go on. Characters like Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and Doctor Strange demand sequels post haste. Shang Chi promises to be the first of what should be many new characters being introduced to the Marvel universe. But how can one top a 22-film interconnected saga that culminates in the biggest film of the century? Is it even possible? Is it worth trying?
It’s not; at least not yet. The brilliance of the Infinity Saga was in its patience. I am loathe to compare DC to Marvel, because it’s a pointless debate, but it’s worth it to consider Warner Bros skipping 20 steps in order to release a team-up film no one was clamoring for and the lengths they have gone to back-peddle from that aborted world-building. The next phases of the Marvel series will require even more patience than the first three, because the blueprint for success is there. Keep cranking out movies with “Avengers” in the title every few years with new characters and call it a day. That’s the easy way forward, but that seems unlikely from a movie studio that made a movie starring a talking tree. The Avengers brand needs a break. Nothing Marvel could dream up would be able to measure up to what they accomplished over the last 11 years. The only way to get past the unrealistic expectations of the most engaged fans is to totally subvert it, while reintroducing characters that are intimately connected to the fabric of Marvel Comics.
Marvel’s Phase Four should culminate in a brand new Fantastic Four film.
This sounds absurd, I’m sure. There have been three Fantastic Four movies already, with an unblemished record of three terrible movies to zero good ones. In a certain sense, this is like suggesting Marvel reboot The Punisher for the fourth time. The Marvel label is so potent that they could probably get away with that, so why not the Fantastic Four? Naysay all you want, but consider the positives rather than the negatives of this concept. The Fantastic Four offer the following:
- A cohesive team concept to rival The Avengers
- A mega-genius character in Reed Richards that could replace Tony Stark
- An elite antagonist in Doctor Doom, who could also do yeoman’s work in the Black Panther and Doctor Strange films
- A clear pathway to Galactus, the only Marvel villain who can outdo Thanos as a threat
From a purely business perspective, it makes a world of sense, too. Disney’s purchase of Fox has given Marvel access to characters it hasn’t been able to leverage these last 11 years: the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Deadpool, etc. The retconning on mutants into the MCU requires more mental gymnastics than the time travel in Endgame. Plus, Kevin Feige is on record stating that we’re years away from the X-Men appearing in the MCU. It makes no sense to go there so soon, especially with Dark Phoenix coming out this summer — the culimation of a movie series that has lasted even longer than the Infinity Saga. The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, is in a spot similar to where the Spider-Man franchise was when Sony rented out Peter Parker to Marvel. The audience’s expectations are lowered, the characters have barely been explored, and (say what you want about the Rami films) the previous interpretations are far from definitive. Making the Fantastic Four the centerpiece of Phase Four is not only a cute piece of marketing (Phase Four? Fantastic Four? Get it?); it also unlocks a wealth of storytelling potential across all three realms of the MCU: the terrestrial, the cosmic, and the mystical.
Let’s dive into the possibilities, with a hypothetical slate of Phase Four films that all lead to the reintroduction of Marvel’s First Family:
Doctor Strange 2
Let’s kick off Phase Four with the most underrated MCU hero, Steven Strange. The first Strange movie didn’t warrant a mountain of think pieces like Black Panther or Captain Marvel. It also didn’t touch on our latent patriotism like Captain America. It just was, and that’s OK. Someone has to be the Thor of this phase.
Doctor Strange set up Baron Mordo as a villain for the future, so why not bring him back here, training sorcerers in darker arts to battle his former protege? What if, in the post-credits stinger, one of those sorcerers in training is Victor Von Doom?
Black Panther 2
Doctor Doom is easily in the top tier of Marvel villains, which makes his general crappiness in the three Fantastic Four movies so disappointing. He’s a brilliant mind, a cunning wizard, and a brutal dictator. Enter Latveria, a Cold War-esque rival to Wakanda. T’Challa has already fought an enemy from within his own kingdom in Killmonger. The next logical threat would be from outside. Perhaps an assassin (Bullseye? Kraven, the Hunter?) is sent into Wakanda to destabilize the government while political forces attempt to seize power. Maybe that plan is being orchestrated from the seat of power in Latveria, which we come to learn is commanded by Doctor Doom, who is fluent in the mystic arts, as seen in Doctor Strange 2. Perhaps there are whispers of a space-bound mission, funded by Stark Industries, that left right before the Thanos Snap, and was lost. A post-credits stinger shows Captain Marvel responding to a distress signal from a far-off planet. When she arrives, the planet is gone. As in, no longer present. Disappeared. Swallowed up whole.
Black Widow
This is where things get a little fuzzy. The Black Widow film is a prequel, which means going backwards to tell a story that we’d need to really stretch to make matter in a Fantastic Four/Galactus saga. But when we remember that our watchword is patience, it’s easier to figure out how to make this fit within that framework. Black Widow sets up Shang Chi, which is your Ant-Man or Spider-Man post-Phase palate cleanser. Like Black Widow, Shang Chi functions best within a more realistic, Earthbound setting. The Black Widow movie could allude to a “Master of Kung Fu” that battles underworld criminals and spies. Or something like that. Let’s not dwell on that. The Black Widow movie is really just here to stretch things out before we get to the good stuff.
Captain Marvel 2
It seems unlikely we’ll get Guardians 3 in this Phase, thanks to the unnecessary controversy over James Gunn’s bad tweets. So, the space-bound elements of the MCU that will inevitably lead to Galactus and the Silver Surfer have to be assumed by Carol Danvers. Piggybacking on the stinger from Black Panther 2, we find Captain Marvel investigating the missing planet. In the midst of that, she runs up against the time-traveling villain Kang the Conqueror, who has seen terrible galactic devastation in the future and believes the only way to survive is to...have a baby with Captain Marvel. Of course, Kang wants to use this super baby to rule the universe and he’ll stop at nothing to woo Carol or kill her. This would be a play off of the Celestial Madonna storyline from the comics (it was Mantis that was the object of Kang’s affection there), and it would also be an opportunity for Marvel to continue using Captain Marvel to make salient points about female empowerment when Carol stands up to some greasy male villain trying to control her reproduction. Heavy-handed? Sure. But wasn’t Carol defeating Yonn-Rogg’s gaslighting equally on the nose? Carol defeats Kang, sending him into the Negative Zone, I guess. Why not? Have fun, Kang.
Our final post-credits stinger sets up our Phase-capping adventure: the Fantastic Four’s spaceship crash lands on Earth. Reed Richards stumbles out of the ship, totally unaware of where (or when) he is. In his panicked state, his arm starts to stretch.
The Fantastic Four
And here we are. Phase Four comes to an end. How does such a crucial group of characters as the Fantastic Four get retconned into MCU canon? First off, Reed Richards is a malcontent. Richards is a brilliant mind, but one that can’t be controlled. He’s bounced from job to job, failing to fit into any environment he’s been placed into. He finally lands a job with SHIELD, prior to the events of The Winter Soldier. Richards becomes obsessed with Dr. Wendy Larson’s work on the lightspeed engine and dedicates himself to making it work. After the dissolution of SHIELD, Richards goes to work for Stark Industries, taking his lightspeed engine efforts with him. Without the aid of the Tesseract, Richards has to invent a means of powering his engine. Richards solicits the help of his good friend, Victor Von Doom, to help him harness cosmic rays (or Gamma rays or some such thing) to make his dream a reality.
The arrival of Thanos in Infinity War sends Richards into a panic. Knowing that the fate of humanity is at stake, he decides to launch his experimental craft early. He will bring his girlfriend Sue Storm, her brother Johnny, and Ben Grimm, who is a mechanical whiz that can troubleshoot any technical issues with the flight. In the worst case scenario of Thanos-related intergalactic genocide, the lightspeed engine can ferry humans off of the planet to start anew. In his haste, Richards leaves out Victor Von Doom from his flight manifest. The ship escapes the atmosphere, but the lightspeed engine malfunctions, sending Richards, Sue, Johnny, and Ben into the Negative Zone. When they come out, they are hurtled back to Earth five years later (post-Endgame) and find that they are now imbued with their traditional superpowers: stretching, invisibility, flaming on, and whatever it is that the Thing is. The Fantastic Four land in, you guessed it, Wakanda. Shuri examines the four and explains the circumstances of their mutation. T’Challa gives them some kind of pep talk, which leads to them assuming the mantle of heroes. This is a bit of a nod to the first appearance of Black Panther in Fantastic Four #52 and 53, but with a switching of circumstances. Now, the Four are dumped into Black Panther’s story, rather than the other way around.
Simultaneously, the Silver Surfer comes to Earth, in the role of herald of Galactus, who was woken from his slumber when Thanos destroyed the Infinity Stones. The Stones were the only power keeping Galactus at bay. Now that they’re gone, nothing can prevent him from consuming the entire universe.
Doctor Doom, furious at Reed Richards for leaving him behind to suffer in the post-Snap world, leaves Latveria when he hears that his former friend has returned from space. Doom wants to not only kill Reed, but also curry favor with the Silver Surfer, in order to insure his survival. Doom attempts to recreate Reed’s experiment and open a portal to the Negative Zone, banishing the Four to this alternate dimension and also allowing various threats into our world to subjugate humanity in preparation for the arrival of Galactus. This gets the attention of Captain Marvel (who returns to Earth) and Doctor Strange (who recognizes that Doom is a disciple of Baron Mordo). They join forces with the Fantastic Four to stop Doctor Doom, who flees back to Latveria. Recognizing his genius at last, Stark Industries hands over Avengers Tower to Reed Richards to become a research facility that for reasons I haven’t yet figured out, is renamed the Baxter Building.
In the post-credits stinger, the Silver Surfer explains to the Fantastic Four that despite it all, Galactus is still coming. And he’s still hungry.
Shang Chi
God, I’m tired at this point. This is the palate cleanser movie, anyway. Who cares? There’s some crazy martial arts. The end. He’ll be back in the inevitable Phase Five. And the wheel keeps on turning.
What do you folks think? Into the above, or not so much? Are you more eager to see the Fantastic Four join the MCU, or the X-Men? Can you think of a bigger threat, post-Thanos, than Galactus? Sound off in the comments section below, and stay tuned for further updates on the MCU's Phase Four as they roll in.
‘Game of Thrones’: Maisie Williams Was Worried Fans Would Hate the Battle of Winterfell Ending
‘Game of Thrones’ Battle of Winterfell Explained in 40-Minute Behind-the-Scenes Video
Just last night, a new version of Francis Ford Coppola‘s hallucinatory Vietnam opus Apocalypse Now debuted to a rapt crowd at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York. The good news is that it won’t be long before everyone else can get eyes on a resurrected classic.
Directly following the premiere, Lionsgate sent out a press release announcing plans to bring the restored film in this new form to theaters nationwide in the US on 15 August, with an accompanying home video release on 27 August. They also released a trailer, included below.
The so-called “Final Cut” splits the difference between the theatrical cut that Coppola felt was too truncated, and the expanded “Redux” cut that he later ruled too indulgent; the four-disc set includes all three, along with the engrossing behind-the-scenes documentary Hearts of Darkness.
There will be no shortage of special features, either, from a recording of last night’s post-screening chat between Coppola and Steven Soderbergh to never-before-seen footage (including the fabled “Monkey Sampan” scene). A handful of featurettes examine Coppola’s experiences at Cannes, the color palette of the film, and the making of the Final Cut as well.
The real burning question is which scenes made the cut and which didn’t. Having attended the premiere last night, I can say now that the detour to a French plantation remains in place, while an unsavory encounter with grounded Playboy bunnies has been excised.
Mostly, though, the improvements are cosmetic. Apocalypse Now has never looked or sounded better, and it’s a dizzying sensory overload to begin with. You’re gonna love the smell of Blu-ray in the morning.
Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut comes to theaters on 15 August and video on 27 August.
The post The new Final Cut promises a definitive Apocalypse Now appeared first on Little White Lies.
Twenty-four years on it’s still difficult, if not impossible, to know quite what to make of Showgirls. That is, at least, the view of director Jeffrey McHale in this academic look at what is now considered a cult classic. Is it, he asks, a “masterpiece of shit”, a misunderstood masterstroke of satirical bad taste from a master of cinema? Or simply a godawful misstep in an otherwise impressive career?
Tellingly, Showgirls still holds the record for the most Razzie Award nominations ever – a whopping 13. Verhoven even turned up to receive his Worst Director gong in person. Yet at the time of its much-hyped release in 1995, in the wake of his and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas’ sleaze-fest smash Basic Instinct, cast and crew were straight-faced in discussing the dramatic depth and relevance of Showgirls. That all changed, of course, once the film received a critical hammering of epic proportions.
Some, such as male co-star Kyle MacLachlan, deemed the film as “horrible”, while others, such as its writer, claimed it to be deliberately, satirically perverse. Even the director eventually shifted his narrative, no doubt realising it more prudent to side with satirists and midnight movie fans than persist with ill-advised rhetoric about its artistic merits. Most are seen in archive discussing the film, both before and after its disastrous opening in US theatres. The one real victim from all the fall-out remains its star, Elizabeth Berkley.
McHale, evidently inspired by Room 237’s playful, fan-obsessed dissection of The Shining, redresses the balance in a number of ways, while neatly exploring key recurring motifs in Vehoven’s work. Superimposing the film’s journey into sequences from Verhoven’s other films – for example: Arnold Schwarzenegger looking over the film’s godawful reviews in a digitally altered scene from Total Recall – McHale draws on a handful of US-based critics and commentators in the hope of finding an answer to his seemingly unanswerable question.
One boldly compares Berkley’s over-the-top performance – which appears to have been steered by a heavy-handed Verhoven – with that of Cobra Woman’s Maria Montez in Robert Siodak’s 1944 camp classic. Another points to Berkley’s own journey from child star in TV’s Saved by the Bell with that of Valley of the Dolls’ Patty Duke, while Verhoven’s cinematic eye riffs off (or rather, rips off) All About Eve with, erm, gay abandon, with all the glitter he can muster.
If at times the sheer academic nature of the piece threatens to drag it down – although fun and at times entertaining, this doesn’t scale the heights of Room 237 – an unexpected third act offers a ray of hope, as it jolts the film back on a livelier track. Stage actress April Kidwell speaks movingly of finding peace in her popular send-up ‘Showgirls! The Musical’ off Broadway, while Berkley herself finds some redemption at a Hollywood Cemetery screening with 4000 ecstatic fans.
Perhaps inevitably, the film, which is nicely edited by McHale, can’t really answer its central question in a satisfactory manner. One of the few female critics interviewed off-camera (no contemporary talking heads feature) interestingly suggests that Verhoven actually “gets” women, since all his lead female characters are far from shrinking violets.
That may be so, but it remains a tough sell not to view Showgirls, in all its absurdist, gory glory, as a piece of salacious trash from two men empowered by their sex-obsessed success, who were given free rein by the studios, and who veered wildly and dangerous close to misogyny. In the modern era of #MeToo, it’s even more difficult to swallow the argument that the film holds a mirror up to society as a whole.
The post You Don’t Nomi – first look review appeared first on Little White Lies.
Avengers: Endgame marks the closing of an unprecedented era of blockbuster filmmaking, the climax of a cinematic universe that has spanned 22 entries. While there are countless examples of sequels, prequels, threequels and more, it’s rare that a franchise get to the 22 film mark while still capturing the public’s imagination. There are, however, a handful of instances – we’ll leave it to you to judge whether Kevin Feige and company turned to any these for inspiration…
Carry On at Your Convenience (1971)
The MCU has created an unforgettable legacy, but what it’s really been lacking is a mixture of bawdy humour and gritty real-world politics. While worse times were to come for the Carry On franchise, Convenience was the first film in the series to lose money at the box office. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a triumph though; its portrayal of union workers as lazy, opportunistic and prone to striking at a moment’s notice chimed with the real-life tensions between the unions and British government in the ’70s.
Another part of the film’s undeniable glory is Carry On stalwart Sid James’ character being written as a downtrodden husband, a direct response to complaints about the actor’s treatment of women in Carry On Henry. The Avengers might represent the best of humanity and society, but can you honestly say that Endgame wouldn’t be improved by the team visiting a pub called The Whippit Inn?
Godzilla Vs Destoroya (1995)
Parallels can be drawn between the 22nd instalments of both the MCU and Toho’s Godzilla franchise, given that this 1995 disaster movie featured a passing of the torch. This monumental fight between The King of Monsters and sea creatures known as Destoroyah resulted in the title character’s death, his legacy being carried on by Godzilla Jr.
The film was well received, with many considering it one of the best Godzilla films ever made thanks to impressive effects and a reverence to the original film. With the Avengers series now at a crossroads, Marvel may want to take notes from Godzilla’s 23rd instalment from 1998, which pitted the iconic monster against erm, Ferris Bueller.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
007’s shortest and most violent adventure is the type of movie that says ‘who needs a script when you can just shoot things?’ Set within the exciting and sexy world of Bolivian natural resources, Daniel Craig’s Bond investigates the mysterious organisation Quantum who, handily, all wear ‘Q’ badges just in case they were in danger of going unrecognised. Released just as the MCU was getting started, the superhero franchise’s tradition of putting small references to other characters in the background was clearly inspired a scene in this film, where an extra can be seen sweeping thin air.
Pokémon the Movie: The Power of Us (2018)
The story of Ash and the other Pokémon attempting to save their town from a forest fire is both the 22nd and 21st instalment in the Pokéverse (2011’s Pokémon the Movie: Black—Victini and Reshiram and White—Victini and Zekrom are two parts of the same story released separately, if we’re getting technical).
Endgame could well have taken inspiration from The Power of Us, as it follows a host of different characters working towards the same goal despite different motivations – though the objective of saving the forest is a slightly smaller-scale than saving the entire universe. The film’s environmental theme proved so effective that the producers of the American Pokémon films have ignored the formula entirely for Detective Pikachu, giving the series’ most beloved character a deerstalker and Ryan Reynolds’ voice.
Scooby Doo: Abracadabra-Doo (2010)
Every long-running franchise benefits from a glorious return. Matthew Lillard, the live action Shaggy in the James Gunn-penned Scooby Doo films, lent his voice to the animated equivalent as the Scooby gang investigate spooky goings on at a magic academy. The 22nd Scooby Doo movie was a clear inspiration for Marvel’s traditional post credit teases, with those hanging around after Abracadabra-Doo’s credits being treated to the Mystery Machine’s sentient GPS (voiced by comedian Dave Attell) telling them to move on with their lives! Time will tell, however, if Spider-man: Far from Home can possibly live up to the 23rd film in this series, Scooby Doo! Camp Scare.
The post Endgame and the other 22nd entries in movie franchise history appeared first on Little White Lies.
To generalise grossly, you might say that the films of the archly combative Ukrainian director Sergei Loznitsa are about how corruption manifests like a creeping fungus on all tiers of society. His fiction breakthrough, 2010’s ironically titled My Joy, tramped a comically grim trail through the oppressive tactics employed by the Ukrainian state, from bent politicos to power-tripping police officers and way, way beyond.
His latest, Donbass, comes across as the culmination of a broader project of whipping back the fetid curtain on grass-roots injustice, a tactic the director has been refining and expanding on in both fiction and documentary works. Unlike 2017’s A Gentle Creature, about a woman entering into a spiralling abyss of administrative double-dealing in an attempt to see her imprisoned husband, this new film takes an absurdist comic view of a country in moral free fall.
Its exquisite corpse structure pulls in sketches are that are loosely tacked together, with each one depicting a different bald-faced grift being meted out by the powers that be. But not only that, it’s an ode to the huddled, braying masses who, in sheer bafflement, have to accept that the scales are not only weighted against them, but are crushing them from above. One aspect of Donbass that makes it especially interesting is how Loznitsa presents corruption as a theatre of the damned, showing how the aggressors are able to assume the role of someone in power in order to lend heft to their nauseating exploitation tactics.
In the backdrop is the conflict between Russian-backed Donetsk and the Ukraine, and all of the episodes here – some tangentially, others directly – look at the idea of how war is used as a cover-all excuse to abuse the working classes. If you’re not with us, you’re against us, is a constant refrain. One scene sees a man attempting to retrieve his stolen car, only to find that its been commandeered by the military and he’d be siding with fascists if he doesn’t officially sign it over to the army. Another depicts a lengthy dialogue between a fast-talking medical administrator and the nurses at a hospital where supplies are running dangerously short.
What makes Donbass one of the director’s finest fiction features to date is the stark tone it strikes through shooting these dark fragments through with a shot of heady realism. Only one sequence involving a raucous wedding party is a pointed shift into the surreal – all the others depict crazy situations that all feel like they’ve been ripped directly from the headlines or have have been recreated with a measure of true-to-life fidelity.
Some of these scenes are capped with a grim punchline, others just spiral off into a paradoxical abyss. The strength of Donbass is that it is unremittingly bleak, but brings a sense of levity via its dazzling whirlwind of cinematic invention. It’s unlikely that this will be Loznitsa’s final word on this pet subject, but the prospect of seeing how the maestro of miserablism further uncovers this ghastly societal rot is certainly a tantalising one.
The post Donbass appeared first on Little White Lies.
You may have noticed that we're just a tiny bit excited about Marvel lately here at Birth.Movies.Avengers: Endgame. Given that this is essentially the end of Marvel's first giant chapter, it seemed like a good time to check BMD's pulse on how the saga currently ranks. Speaking just for myself this changes from day to day, and a whole lot of entries are more or less tied. But I, along with everyone else, made an official ranking anyway. We then averaged out those rankings (well, James Shapiro did) to get an overall BMD list, after which you can find our individual lists.
So without further ado, the BMD Marvel rankings (Warning, there are some ties. Sorry, but math is math!):
19. The Incredible Hulk
18. Iron Man 2
17. Thor: The Dark World
16. Avengers: Age of Ultron
15. Doctor Strange
14. Thor
13. Ant-Man and the Wasp
12. Captain Marvel
11. Iron Man
10. Ant-Man
9. Spider-Man: Homecoming
8. Captain America: Civil War
7. Avengers: Infinity War
TIE
6. Captain America: The First Avenger
TIE
6. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
5. Iron Man 3
4. The Avengers
TIE
3. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
TIE
3. Thor: Ragnarok
TIE
2. Black Panther
TIE
2. Avengers: Endgame
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
And as promised, our individual lists:
JM Mutore
22. Doctor Strange
21. The Incredible Hulk
20. Ant-Man and the Wasp
19. Iron Man 2
18. Avengers: Age of Ultron
17. Captain Marvel
16. Avengers: Infinity War
15. Thor: The Dark World
14. Ant-Man
13. Thor
12. Captain America: Civil War
11. Avengers: Endgame
10. Spider-Man: Homecoming
9. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
8. Iron Man 3
7. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
6. Captain America: Civil War
5. Iron Man
4. Guardians of the Galaxy
3. Black Panther
2. Thor: Ragnarok
1. The Avengers
Leigh Monson
22. Thor: The Dark World
21. Iron Man 2
20. The Incredible Hulk
19. Avengers: Age of Ultron
18. Thor
17. Ant-Man and the Wasp
16. Ant-Man
15. Doctor Strange
14. Iron Man
13. Captain Marvel
12. Spider-Man: Homecoming
11. Captain America: The First Avenger
10. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
9. Avengers: Infinity War
8. Thor: Ragnarok
7. Captain America: Civil War
6. Iron Man 3
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
4. Avengers: Endgame
3. The Avengers
2. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
1. Black Panther
Amelia Emberwing
22. The Incredible Hulk
21. Iron Man 2
20. Thor: The Dark World
19. Avengers: Age of Ultron
18. Iron Man 3
17. Iron Man
16. Ant-Man and the Wasp
15. Thor
14. Ant-Man
13. Avengers: Infinity War
12. Doctor Strange
11. Thor: Ragnarok
10. Captain America: Civil War
9. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
8. Captain America: The First Avenger
7. Spider-Man: Homecoming
6. The Avengers
5. Captain Marvel
4. Guardians of the Galaxy
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
2. Black Panther
1. Avengers: Endgame
James Emanuel Shapiro
22. The Incredible Hulk
21. Thor: The Dark World
20. Iron Man 2
19. Spider-Man: Homecoming
18. Doctor Strange
17. Captain Marvel
16. Avengers: Age of Ultron
15. Ant-Man and the Wasp
14. Thor
13. The Avengers
12. Captain America: The First Avenger
11. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
10. Iron Man
9. Iron Man 3
8. Captain America: Civil War
7. Avengers: Endgame
6. Avengers: Infinity War
5. Black Panther
4. Ant-Man
3. Thor: Ragnarok
2. Guardians of the Galaxy
1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Scott Wampler
22. Iron Man 2
21. Thor: The Dark World
20. The Incredible Hulk
19. Avengers: Age of Ultron
18. The Avengers
17. Thor
16. Doctor Strange
15. Captain Marvel
14. Ant-Man and the Wasp
13. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
12. Captain America: Civil War
11. Avengers: Infinity War
10. Ant-Man
9. Spider-Man: Homecoming
8. Black Panther
7. Iron Man 3
6. Iron Man
5. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
3. Avengers: Endgame
2. Thor: Ragnarok
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
Evan Saathoff
22. The Incredible Hulk
21. Thor: The Dark World
20. Thor
19. Doctor Strange
18. Iron Man
17. Iron Man 2
16. Avengers: Age of Ultron
15. Captain Marvel
14. Captain America: The First Avenger
13. Captain America: Civil War
12. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
11. The Avengers
10. Ant-Man and the Wasp
9. Ant-Man
8. Black Panther
7. Spider-Man: Homecoming
6. Iron Man 3
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
4. Thor: Ragnarok
3. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Avengers: Infinity War
1. Avengers: Endgame