Spiderman Homecoming, a treat to watch

Spiderman Homecoming has some of the best writing in the movies seen this year. The story is very well thought out and put together.The cast is diverse and the actors played their roles to perfection. The collaboration between Sony and Marvel to deliver this project was a very good strategy. This is the movie you want to watch with friends. The humour is balanced, its not in every scene, its not over extended slapstick and not too overdone. There is an even balance and tempo between the comedy, the action, the serious scenes, the romance, the frustration, the contemplation and self reflection centered around Peter Parker and the people he interacts with.Its clearly targetted at a teenage or younger audience as can be observed through Peter Parker's high school going personality, but Michael Keaton does an excellent job and brings enough maturity in its delivery for an adult audience not to feel too uncomfortable about being in the cinema. This decision to split the everyday problems an adult with family and financial responsibilities has to face and the more youthful or juvenile problems faced by a teenager between Keaton and Tom Holland was a breath of fresh air. It would have been awful to sit through a broke and miserable Peter Parker in a ramshackle cockroach ridden apartment trying to make a buck by selling Spiderman photos his editor doesn't want to publish.

That said what use would this review be if it couldn't point out areas where there is still room for improvement. The very first problem that hit me watching this movie at the cinema was how poor the animated movement for Spiderman was when he first dons the suite and begins hopping from building to building. Its worse than movement in a cartoon. It may have been an attempt to capture the caricatured or stylized movement associated with Spiderman, but the movements are too quick and jerky, look very low budget and lack the realism the audience would expect from a big budget movie. This problem surfaces many times during Spiderman's action scenes. It begs the question, how could anyone in charge of the CGI have approved these shoddy or ill designed sequences? For goodness sake, don't you have experts to identify these incongruities? It looks as unpolished as a low budget movie, like an early rendition that someone forgot to finalize. Yes we know its fantasy, but that poor movement takes away from the realism or suspension of disbelief because it looks poignantly fake. It should have been spotted and corrected. In my view the low quality of the animation in these sequences threaten the quality of the entire movie; because the movie is about Spiderman, so how can it possibly have this kind of flaw? This is something management at Sony and Marvel very seriously need to address. It reminds me of the trailer for Captain America: Civil War where Falcon does a scissor kick and lands in a hero pose.  I pointed out that the quality of the transitions in those shots were too low for a trailer of such a big franchise here. Thankfully it was later corrected. But the same kind of quality problem can be seen in the mentioned sequences in Spiderman Homecoming. It is truly baffling how a movie on which investors are spending tremendous amounts of money can have such an important aspect uncorrected. This flaw forced me to keep looking for other shoddy work, but fortunately there wasn't any. Its difficult to understand why this kind of thing happens in such important franchises; that one can't help but start to conjure up conspiracy theories. What it does show is that there may have been oversight problems. One person saying o.k to something because some other person o.ked it, so it must be o.k; that right there is how unpardonable flaws make it into the final cut.

I could tell Spiderman Homecoming(SH)  would be a great movie, one of the best of the year. It was. But had a sinking feeling it would not do as well as earlier Spiderman reboots at the box office and it hasn't. Here is why. Firstly, the CGI animation problem in some sequences pointed out here with the lead character, no one less than Spiderman himself. It may not seem like a big issue, but trust me, at a deep psychological level it is and it can affect whether audiences want to see the movie more than just once. Whoever let this problem slip through holds some responsibility for the lower box office result for this movie. This should never have been allowed to happen, not at this level. Nevertheless, the jury is not out and SH may go the box office record breaking distance we all hope for it to achieve.

Secondly, the writing for SH is some of the most well thought out we've seen. That sick twist where Vulture turns out to be Liz's doting Dad was bad-ass, it unfolded to the sound of a non-discrept, warm family scene like a chilling thriller; it was easily my favourite set piece, one of the most memorable parts. However, there is one problem with the screenplay and this is that there is no consistent and cohesive build up in the showdown between Vulture and Spiderman. The audience is kept wondering until the very end whether Vulture is Spidreman's main nemesis in the movie, or maybe it should expect another even after a full reveal of Vulture and his lair. The development of Vulture and his story is excellent, its great to have real, cleverly developed villains who have a deep story of their own to tell. However, too little time is allocated to the development of the battle between Vulture and Spiderman, it doesn't feel as though the tension reaches a palpable breaking point. This is mainly because Peter Parker never gets angry enough, he doesn't develop sufficient angst to want to take the Vulture down, he's distracted by the Stark internship for far too long. Even in the car when he and Liz are being driven to the Homecoming Adrian Toomes clearly wants to take Peter down, but Peter doesn't have the same kind of eagerness to brawl with his first real nemesis hence there is little cinematic tension between the two would be foes.

There are some parts of the movie that play down the energy instead of hyping it up. For instance, go back to your high school days. If the girl you had a crush on, who just happened to be one of the prettiest girls in school said she felt the same way about you as you felt about her there would have been fireworks, hugs, very romantic eyes gazing, a kiss and so on but the audience is not served any of this despite a strong build up. Its a movie about teenagers so there should be a feel good, Grease like, ending where everyone is feeling the teenage vibe, but the closing with that awful scene where Liz is in tears, carrying a box, being punished for her father's sins, pleading with Peter was truly sour. So he gets the girl but it ends rather crappy? That wasn't well planned. The movie consequently does not comply with the rules of poetic justice. If this is the ending that was really desired Liz's experiences and personality were mismatched; she should not have been depicted as sweet, instead she should have been a mean girl who drove her father to steal, and break the law because she was spoilt and liked the finer things. You lost the plot, drained moviegoers of that "darn right, feel good" vibe, gave the audience another reason why they might not want to see it twice or three times. Even if all this is to set the audience up for the sequel, which I am looking forward to by the way, the ending is lame to say the least. This is another reason it won't perform as well as expected.

Another thing to remember about this genre, is that this is a superhero genre. Its about heroism. The mantra: "What is heroism?" should never leave a writers lips. The really tricky bit for a writer preparing material in this genre is an increasingly sophisticated audience. The urge to create a relatable hero or heroine that will resonate with audience can be so strong it blots out heroism itself, which in this genre becomes self defeating. Its very important to avoid this pitfall. Heroism means so many things to different people, be they young or old, happy or sad, protagonists or antagonists. For a young hero like Peter, coming of age emotions that evoke heroism include experiencing great fear, but going against all the dreadful feelings to face a nemesis. Feeling that overpowering urge to flee but standing your ground when everyone else is running away. Stepping in between someone innocent and their worst fear even though you know this could get ugly. Getting back up, calling out a challenge when your nemesis has licked, dissed and left you for dead to keep him or her from reaching someone you're trying to protect. At some point going all out in a rage because so many people are depending on you, and you just can't fail. The list can go on and on; a director should never forget a superhero movie is just that; no matter where the story goes or how its told at the end of the day its about heroism not just fancy stunts.    

In all director Jon Watts and his team did a stellar job. They knew what to do to make this movie sell, but may not have plucked the strings hard enough to fully hit all the emotional highs required to deliver a box office result that eclipsed earlier Spiderman movies and if they eventually are able to do this, it does not change the fact that there is still room for improvement. I do believe they will take this franchise to new heights in the sequel with a good postmortem and adequate oversight because what is most important is that, skill-wise, they have proven they have what it takes.

The Thor:Ragnarok trailer was entertaining....

The Hulk, sporting a new haircut and holding a conversation is truly awesome, very refreshing. His CGI also looks more enhanced than we have seen before; thumbs up to that. I could be wrong but Hulk also looks less thickset, less stocky, a little leaner and a bit more GQ, its as though he is getting with the times, nice, very nice. A sexier Hulk huh? The audience certainly didn't see this coming. Very clever, I can see the ladies liking this decision by Marvel. There was a change in tone from the first trailer from being a little bit more laid back to being tighter; like the tightening of a loose guitar string to give off the right note. If the movie's tone is edited toward the second trailer the movie will be more enjoyable.

Director Taika Waititi seems to be taking this one in the right direction.  Its great to see diversity in the cast. Tessa Thomson is seen making all the right moves as Valkyrie. Thor has a large and loyal fan base, but for this movie to be a success it has to be tight. Weaknesses in previous Thor movies have stemmed from a tendency of turning Thor into a stand-up, joke telling comedian of sorts; a role that ideally should be Loki's. I've identified this problem before in Trendz, and its sad to see this mistake continue unperturbed. Yes its funny, but why is Thor the teller of lamish jokes? If Thor must tell jokes it should ideally not be because he's intentionally trying to be funny. For instance when he jokes with Bruce Banner (portrayed by Mark Rufallo) about defeating Hulk in the arena it should not appear as though he is joking, i.e. it should ideally be that he really can't stomach the fact that he was knocked about and is therefore embellishing the story. It should be funny to the audience but not to Thor himself. The way Thor bends the truth with a straight face about his encounters with Hulk is very useful for writers developing a narrative; its a useful quirk or character flaw in that if you really know Thor and he says something you know you should double check the facts or he might be having one over you. Thor pre-emptly scuttles the humour again in the part where he refers to Hulk as a friend from work. It would be funnier if Loki shouted this out and Thor turned to him with a serious expression of what the...are you talking about, this green monster is going to try to smash me into the ground. In this switch Loki is delivering the humour, Thor is the target and Hulk completes the scene. The laughter or humour is left to come from the audience. The three point methodology works. Writers can use this method over and over simply tweaking it each time. The humour should indirectly circle Thor rather than come verbally directly from him. The same applies to when he is sitting with Hulk, who refers to him as water. Thor counters that they are both fire. But he does this with a slight smile toward the end that should not be in the scene [as though he knows the gist or humour in what he saying]. This is wrong. Why? Because its unnecessarily out of character and the method of delivery for interaction between two important characters is incorrectly presented in the narrative. Thor should be stoic about what he is saying there, the laughter should come from the audience not from him. Guardians of the Galaxy (GG) 2 makes this same mistake. Yes, GG1 was refreshingly funny but this seems to have warped or skewed the method on how to build GG2. GG2  attempts to turn nearly every character into a comedian and every other scene into something comedic therefore the effectiveness of the narrative collapses on itself. The movie has great scenery, superb actors but loses the plot by putting all the characters into a comedic blender, consequently there is a significant drop in quality in the second installment of this franchise.

As a director taking over the next installment of a successful movie treat being pushed to top what was done successfully in the last movie with suspicion. Dole it out in the same quantity the audience enjoyed it at, its now your baseline. Remember if the audience liked the coffee or tea with two sugars, give it to them with two sugars in the sequel; don't put in three heap spoons like an amateur; instead the next time around add a little cinnamon in the tea and a little creamer in the coffee, but maintain two sugars. In other words absolutely look for a new angle to introduce that will captivate the audience. Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of amplification. A very common and persisting problem in sequels today is the tendency to take an aspect of an earlier movie be it interesting story lines, explosions, romance, humour, action, special effects and so on that resonated with the audience, then go overboard trying to over amplify this in the sequel cramming it down the audience's throat until its gagging. This problem turns movies from even seasoned directors today into glossy big budget amateur hour renditions of earlier blockbusters. Its important never to lose balance. If something resonated with the audience stop constantly trying to go bigger and over the top, don't gorge on it in the sequel, instead look for that Zen feeling of self control and maintain the previous flow whilst venturing into other aspects of the movie to sustain interest through creativity or intrigue rather than over amplification. Don't be an amateur. Take a yoga lesson or a meditation class, calm down and resist the urge go bigger and badder, instead maintain the chill; but explore, go deeper,  go smoother and tighter. This is a craft, methodology in the narrative is real its not something fleeting, the foundation is no different from algebra; an x or y in the wrong place doesn't yield the desired result. Characters have individual roles and personalities, they can't just be put in a blender. Making everyone in a movie like this comedic is like putting both tennis players at Wimbledon on the same side of the court with no one on the other end  and expecting the audience to enjoy watching them play. The plot is lost; the players need to be on different ends of the court to smack the ball back and forth for the audience to have something interesting to view, similarly personalities are tentpoles that hold the narrative up by effectively playing or feeding off one another.

When Thor says they are both fire he should be pensive and frown, be seen by the audience to be at pains to be equal in strength to the Hulk and see nothing amusing about what is being said, that humour should be left to the audience otherwise the movie goes off key, like parody or a bad comedy that some people will find amusing but others will see as lame leading to potentially negative reviews. Thor should not introspectively view himself as being amusing, but this is the tone he gives off, even when narrating events during the teasers he sounds bemused; which is incorrigible really. Consequently the audience is being forced not to take him seriously. It would make sense if the bemused narrative were said in that way by Loki, the trickster making light of Thor's dire predicament. Thor's situation is dire, the impossible has happened: Hela has destroyed Mjolnir, his most prized possession.Thor has also been captured like an animal in a net, this is very serious, Thor is in a very bad place. Only Loki who is always looking for a laugh would be bemused by Thor's terrible plight. Thor has never been this down in the dumps. Put yourself in his shoes, realistically he should be in very, very low spirits....and the audience should be right down there in empathy with him...sooooo...why is he narrating what's happened to him as though he is bemused? The heaviness of the narrative is killed off instead of being expertly milked like a cash cow because the audience doesn't get a smidgen of a chance to feel his deep anguish. This is what happens when the characters are not allocated the right personalities, it affects the methodology applied in writing the scenarios. If the personalities were properly allocated this would never have happened and the humour, anguish, action and narrative would flow like a natural-born-blockbuster. Its not too late to get this right in the MCU. I'm not being negative, I'm trying to help...this is what perspective looks like.

This problem of improper delivery of humour or how to associate it with Thor's character weakened previous Thor movies. Its as though the lines between Thor and Loki's personalities and roles are being crossed in the MCU, creating a method that is difficult to sell to an audience. The persona we have seen thus far tries to portray Thor as a laid back goofy god of thunder who doesn't take himself too seriously. This is the wrong combination. It makes it difficult for the audience to appreciate how to relate to him. Ideally he should be laid back, but take himself seriously, this is the correct persona for Thor. Laid back or down to earth for him is cutting his hair, wearing earth clothes, letting his friends play around with trying to lift Mjolnir, unashamedly cutting a rug with them on the dance floor and having a beer not trying to play comedian. In the MCU lore Thor is the guy who's looks and being the god of thunder with the intimidating hammer make him seem unapproachable. This is good, because it can be counter balanced when he is "off-duty" by his being the cool guy willing to hang out with anyone rich or poor, share a beer, date a girl cause he likes her not necessarily because she's skinny or big, cute or average because he has a big heart. He's the hero who'll make friends with anyone regardless of their social status, who likes any genre of music. Being laid back in this way is what gains him respectability with the audience. Future Thor movies have to bring out this people person aspect of Thor as a sharp contrast with off-duty and on on-duty Thor. Thor's openness to people is real and proven in that he even befriends the Hulk, something many mortals would have thought impossible. Thor doesn't let differences get in the way of being there for someone. HIs friendship with the Hulk, their persistent rivalry and attempt to outdo one another resonates very well with the cinema going audience  and can be used by writers who craft these characters to create blockbusters for very long time to come. Building these aspects of Thor and teaming him up with the Hulk makes good business sense for Marvel. Allow Loki to personify the comedian, the guy with the jokes for every situation. Remember in Norse mythology Loki is after all the trickster god. He's the funny man and writers in the MCU need to get this right a.s.a.p and not mix up his role as the joker with Thor. Already Tom Hiddleston's brand of delivery makes him the best point man for writers in the MCU to write this kind humour around. This places the trio of Loki, Thor and Hulk in personas that are positioned to move like clockwork and make sense in any scenario the writers have them  face. Their interaction will consequently deliver consistent hits for Marvel.

Trust me, being a comedian or a funny man which was intended for Loki doesn't work for Thor, however, being the butt of a joke every now and again at his expense does because Thor is too cool and laid back to be affected by any kind of humour directed at him. This chemistry would work with the audience and bring Marvel the blockbusters it needs. Its really just tweaking or a careful re-positioning of the part ably brought to life by Chris Hemsworth. Its a tone thing. To hit all the right notes adjustments need to be made to Thor's persona, and how he relates to the people and events unfolding around him. You can prove this is right quite easily. Go on Youtube and study reactions to the Thor: Ragnarok trailers. Now watch to see how many people actually respond with laughter when Thor tells a joke e.g. - he's a friend from work, defeated him easily, Thor like water Hulk like fire etc. The fact that not everyone responds to this humour, that some people burst out laughing and others simply watch is a significant red flag.  If the trailers can clearly demonstrate that the humour is not hitting all the notes its a definitive indication that something needs to be done differently. To ignore it is suicidal. Tweak, tweak, tweak this...get it right or its inevitable that in the long run you will lose Thor as a significant hero in the MCU.

What to do with Hela's horns/antlers. It would be interesting if the horns could flow back like dreads and move like natural hair when she is relaxed. They would then begin to rise into place when she enters battle mode so to speak.

The part where Hela asks what Thor is the god of and he does a perfect superhero landing then comes up sprouting lightning is the business, excellent cinematic delivery.

The background music was superb. Here we go!





Looking forward to November 2017!

Black Panther: Marvel recently dropped a teaser.

Black Panther is, without doubt, the most anticipated movie of 2018.

Why is this?

Black Panther is a test case for whether the movie industry has room for this kind of diversity. Many people may believe the idea of Wakanda being the world's most technologically advanced country is hard to accept when images of dirty, starving and impoverished Africans seems to be the starter on the menu before the main course of every restaurant selling movie clips and ideas about the continent. Nevertheless, even in this poverty and struggle there is beauty, a chance to see where it all began.

What you should understand is that the world has not as yet felt the full weight, might, force and presence of Africa. At present, the majority of Africans struggle for the most basic of needs. There is very little room to apply effort and time to anything else. However, as the tide turns and the continent finds its feet this effort and time will exert itself fully and unwaveringly on every field of science and technology, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, architecture, medicine, information technology, mining, space travel, sport, athletics,  art, literature, dance, entertainment and so on. Africans lack neither intellectual nor physical prowess. Thus far the world has only seen snippets of this potential. You have not seen anything yet. But be prepared for the continent to overwhelm the world in every field of human endeavour, and dominate in ways that may lead to some frustration to those on the receiving end, not because there's anything different than anyone else about Africans but simply because the continent's potential is currently smothered, unseen, understated and far from being realised. Be patient and let the continent get its house in order. Instead of lamenting how Africa is problematic and lagging behind the rest of the world, instead there will come a time when the world will be grateful for and understand why it was given a head start. And don't be upset if, when this potential is inevitably realised, for a very long time, there is absolutely nothing you can beat Africans at. Nothing. The idea of a fictional Wakanda would seem to point to that potential as a kind of reminder that the continent should not be written off as many tend to do today .....rather be patient, supportive and wait for it....because its coming your way like a cool refreshing breeze on a hot summer's day.

DC's Wonder Woman right now has completely changed the game when it comes to female superheroes. My view was that if this happened Marvel would have to up its game in this area. And this is something the Dora Milaje (DM), if carefully handled by Coogler can do for the Franchise, but the clips shown in this regard, of the DM, were not inspiring. Let me elaborate on this. The casting is second to none with the likes of Lupita Nyong'o, Florence Kasumba, Danai Gurira, Nabiyah Be etc. The context, what they portray and how they portray it is what is important. There must be some intrigue associated with the DM. They are not ordinary one dimensional body guards. They have views, feelings, commentary on what they observe (as women) and very importantly a side of them that shows a human side and life when they are off-duty and the potentially unstoppable mercenaries they will become when they are on-duty, also the transition from off-duty to on-duty, from civilian clothes to uniform that might resemble the wiles of a busy dressing room of models before they go on the runway rather than army barracks, sides that are as different as night and day that add to the attraction and intrigue that follows them. When the audience sees a DM on duty it should see her and know there is another human side to her. If director Ryan Coogler gets this, then he definitely has a major hit in his capable hands. Think of the Dora Milaje as the mothers of Africa, in a Black Panther Wakanda showdown what would they be the most concerned about (that the men might overlook) while stylishly, fiercely and fearlessly protecting their leader. Other than this...

the trailer, by the way,....was on point.

The background music was fantastic!





Be careful not to give too much about the coming movie away through the trailers.....