Marvel's Black Panther (2018)

markodaly

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The mere concept of Wakanda reflects on the spectre of historical colonialism, by being an explicitly fantastical contrast to the actual situation in Africa - a continent long-since exploited by colonists, imperialists and other 'western' powers.

Did you know that the biggest slave trade was not across the Atlantic but across the Indian ocean and the Persian Gulf. Arab traders have traded and exploited Africa long before 'western' powers did but perhaps they were the last to exploit, so like pass the parcel, they get the blame, even if historical inaccurate.

Fun fact, the language Swahili is derived from Arabic.

I don't think it's any coincidence that two of the countries most devastatingly affected by modern militarism are mentioned by name.

I think the 700,000 dead in the past 8 years in Syria would disagree but continue.

His plan seems destined to go a similar route - aggression further stoking geopolitical tensions and resentments rather than resolving past ills. It is, after all, the same mistake America has made repeatedly and catastrophically throughout the 20th and 21st centuries

Possibly, yet there has never been fewer wars and violent deaths in history today then any other time in history.

Its a tad more complicated than that. OK, it is a Marvel movie, simplistic black and white (no pun intended) narratives are the go, but still, the whole, "The world is crap and its America's fault" shtick wears thin after a while.

As for why they end up back in Oakland? Well, inequality is still alive and well in the US of A, with many black communities deeply feeling the impact of that.

As I said, its marketed at that segment, not about infinitely poorer people in Malawi or Uganda. It is just a bit rich for me, to take that point seriously. If I was doing charity, I would give it to those who need it most, not those who are at the top of the food chain, which African-Americans are. It was a pompous, self serving ending that crystallised to me, the entire film.

johnny_ultimate

markodaly wrote: »

Did you know that the biggest slave trade was not across the Atlantic but across the Indian ocean and the Persian Gulf. Arab traders have traded and exploited Africa long before 'western' powers did but perhaps they were the last to exploit, so like pass the parcel, they get the blame, even if historical inaccurate.

Fun fact, the language Swahili is derived from Arabic.

I very much appreciate seeing films reflecting all aspects of historical slavery - the superb Zama (in every way a superior film to this) is a brilliant, probing examination of slavery in South America. I wholeheartedly welcome any films that capture the historical complexity of the slave trade. But nor do I have any objections to African-American filmmakers (or any filmmaker able to tackle the subject effectively), coming from a society still haunted by the spectre of slavery, making films that heavily focus on that chapter in history.

I think the 700,000 dead in the past 8 years in Syria would disagree but continue.

The quote you chose in no way, shape or form dismisses the catastrophic situation in Syria (or those in Yemen, Libya, Somalia etc...). Afghanistan and Iraq have been torn apart repeatedly by both internal and international conflicts... I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with that statement

Possibly, yet there has never been fewer wars and violent deaths in history today then any other time in history.

Its a tad more complicated than that. OK, it is a Marvel movie, simplistic black and white (no pun intended) narratives are the go, but still, the whole, "The world is crap and its America's fault" shtick wears thin after a while.

So critiques of American imperialism are completely off the table, despite it still being perhaps the major force of influence in very many parts of the world? As both you and I have pointed out, this is a Marvel film so the depth it can go into international geopolitics is extremely limited. But as someone who does wholly believe American intervention has had and continues to have a major, often damaging impact in many areas of the world... well, I wouldn't exactly dismiss it as a 'shtick', even if the situation is indeed a lot more complicated

As I said, its marketed at that segment, not about infinitely poorer people in Malawi or Uganda. It is just a bit rich for me, to take that point seriously. If I was doing charity, I would give it to those who need it most, not those who are at the top of the food chain, which African-Americans are. It was a pompous, self serving ending that crystallised to me, the entire film.

It's also made by people from that segment. Ryan Coogler's first two films were deeply focused on the experience of modern African Americans: it's one of his obvious artistic preoccupations and passions, and a quick glance at his biography illustrates why. I think the reception to the film across the pond also shows there's an audience who've been waiting for a film of this scale (I'm struggling to think of a single blockbuster like this that has addressed black American history so explicitly) that reflects on their experiences. Would it have been nice to see African countries benefit from the fruits of Wakanda? Absolutely - I don't think what's in the film precludes other countries being helped outside of America - in fact I think it's heavily implied! - but I would not have objected one jot to that being explicitly shown.

Still, it's a film heavily aimed at an African American audience (many of whom I very much doubt feel like they're at the top of the food chain a lot of the time in their own lived experience), and a director who obviously wanted to reflect some of his own personal experience in the film. That that feeds into the film itself is IMO neither particularly surprising nor objectionable, regardless of feelings over the execution

markodaly

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The quote you chose in no way, shape or form dismisses the catastrophic situation in Syria.

Besides the fact that you were wrong about the two countries most devastated by war when in fact the one at the very top of the list, Syria does not get a mention.

In 2017, the year this film came out, the biggest military engagements (in Syria and their use of chemical weapons) had nothing to do with American Imperialism. These are just facts but it goes against the narrative, which is the under current of my entire point. If it does not involve the USA, its not sexy or marketable and no one really cares. Would the average American be able to point out Syria on a map? I doubt it, but words like Iraq and Afghanistan are parts of the American vernacular, hence their use.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been torn apart repeatedly by both internal and international conflicts... I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with that statement

That is a different statement to your previous one however. I am sure you will agree that the issues at play here are immensely complicated, more so than what about 120 minute Marvel flick can do it justice. I just think these references are just shoe horned into the story in a ham fisted way because it suits the marketing and takes a jackhammer to make the point.

So critiques of American imperialism are completely off the table, despite it still being perhaps the major force of influence in very many parts of the world?

Oh no, not at all but in your statement above you also hit on the main reason why we now have less wars and deaths by violent conflict then ever before. Because rightly or wrongly because of American influence. Put it this way, if the Americans were not the dominant force in the Pacific rim, who would be? It depends of course. China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Australia et all, would all be trying to exert their influence which would lead to more conflict in the long run. Want to see proof, well you see it in the Middle East right now, with America retrenching back and letting the likes of Syria, Russia, Iran and Saudi fight it out among themselves. As the old saying goes, be careful for what you wish for.

As I said, its a hell of a lot more complicated than the time old tested "America Bad" shtick.

It's also made by people from that segment.

Exactly, hence why they are first and foremost American. Its catered for an American audience, not an African audience. Put your average African-American guy into an African town, village or city and they have very very little in common. They have more in common with Europeans actually but that is a debate for another day.

Still, it's a film heavily aimed at an African American audience (many of whom I very much doubt feel like they're at the top of the food chain a lot of the time in their own lived experience)

If all your neighbours drive a Merc and you drive a VW then relatively you will feel poorer, but the key word there is feel. The average African American annual wage in America will put them in the top 2% of the world.

johnny_ultimate

markodaly wrote: »

Besides the fact that you were wrong about the two countries most devastated by war when in fact the one at the very top of the list, Syria does not get a mention.

I didn’t say that

I don't think it's any coincidence that two of the countries most devastatingly affected by modern militarism are mentioned by name.

Two of *the* countries. Not the only ones. Simply two of the worst affected, alongside Syria and several others. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologise, but I stand by my original wording. Although pedantry of this sort, given the grave subject matter of contrasting humanitarian crisis zones, isn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with so that’s all I’ll say on the matter.

yourdeadwright

Wow seen this and thought it was pretty awful
CGI looked cheap and action/fight scenes where pretty crap to,
Don't get the hype at all,

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to be that a lot of the "meh" comments I'm seeing are on Irish sites.

Has me wondering if it's part of our own past as a conquered and colonised nation, while being a white people.
We're told that as white Europeans we are the bad people, which clashes with our own cultural identity. We are viewing American media reactions through our own past.

Panther was a good film but that, for me, was down to the cast. It had major flaws (some of which admittedly come straight out of the comic) but I do think it's worth the hype for being black led in Africa.

Shame how Blade is always forgotten about

Its a pretty awful movie weather it was an all white cast or all black cast shouldn't really matter, You either think the movie is good or bad and for me it was a poor Movie,
As for Blade .....1 and 2 are my fav all time comic book movies,
Id love to see Snipes in the MCU but is he to old now for it to work ?

Black Panther is so mundane and middle of the road that they may as well removed the definition of mediocrity from dictionaries and replace it with the film's poster.

So much has been said about Black Panther, how it's an intelligent, challenging film, the way in which people celebrated the all-black cast, how the FX work and action were extraordinary and upon watching the film the only real sense I felt was boredom and frustration that such a talented cast and filmmaker were wasted on what amounts to one of Marvel's least interesting films yet.

The idea that Black Panther is the first black superhero is an odd one as there have been plenty of big-screen comic book adaptations in which a black actor played the hero, Spawn, Blade, The Meteor Man, Hancock, hell Storm in X-Men, Catwoman, Steel and even Abar, the First Black Superman may want a word with all those people championing the film as some bold and striking example of representation.

Sure it may be the best modern representation but there is nothing striking or new about a black superhero, Blade is superior in every way to Black Panther and it's kind of shocking in many ways that so much of the CGI used in Black Panther feels looks inferior to that seen in Blade and it's sequels. Blade's less than impressive CGI work can be forgiven due to its age and comparatively low budget, how is it that large parts of Black Panther a film made for hundreds of millions of dollars looks like a made for TV movie is beyond me.

The opening scene of Panther in his ship appears to have been lifted from some really shitty Star Trek fan film, it's laughable just how bad it looks and things don't really get any better. The ritual cliff looks like something from a PS1 era game and the final fight beneath ground looks and feels like something lifted from a not so modern game, the kind made to fill the lowest shelf in a game store.

The uniform look of the Marvel universe is a great idea in theory, but when the results are so dull, muted and familiar you have to ask why bother? If your films look like something that was made by The Asylum to air on the SyFy channel at 9pm on a Saturday night then something has gone wrong, especially when said films are costing $200 million plus a pop.

To see just how rote and dead looking the film is one only has to look as far as one of the films final moments in which two men on a clifftop in an African country watch the sun as death beckons. It's rather familiar to the ending of Blood Diamond only, one is bold, striking and human and the other is Black Panther which looks like it was shot in a hurry and then someone forgot to fully render the CGI.

Black Panther isn't truly awful, in Ryan Coogler you have one of the most striking voices in black cinema, whose Fruitvale Station remains a singular piece of cinema that tackled race relations in an intelligent and understated manner to great effect. As such Marvel's hiring of him was a bold and interesting move but watching the film one gets the impression that rather than let Coogler make his film, Marvel instead took it and ran it through the cookie cutter committee to ensure that the end product was as mundane as every past Marvel film, only even more disappointing given the level of talent squandered here. There are a couple of attempts at intelligent social and geopolitical commentary but they feel more like accidental afterthoughts than anything else.

Michael B. Jordan is genuinely great, he's the first villain in any of these films to be in any way menacing or a threat and his plan is less evil than it is totally understandable and commendable. Watching Black Panther and it's clear that the ruling class of Wakanda are cowards who care only for themselves, happy to sit back and watch the world go to hell as they hide away safely in their own world hoarding technology and resources. It's rare to actively root for the bad guys but in Black Panther, all I wanted was for T'Challa and his family to be executed or banished and for Wakanda to help impoverished and disenfranchised communities to rise up and overthrow the world's governments. Just to notea as I touch on this below, the sidekicks are only boring when working with T'Challa, away from him they come alive leading you to wonder why anyone wants to see Black Panther at all as he is by far the least interesting character here.

Andy Serkis is the MVP here, he's funny and menacing in equal measure and lights up any scene. Honestly, I would sooner watch Serkis and B. Jordan for 2 hours than Black Panther or any of his overly serious and boring as hell sidekicks. Chadwick Boseman may be a good actor, I don't know yet as I haven't seen anything to confirm this but as T'Challa he doesn't so much set the screen on fire as he does slowly kill us through boredom. The sooner they kill him off and stick his sister or Michonne in the costume the better.

The female cast of Black Panther are where it's at, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira and Angela Bassett steal the show and manage alongside the two villains to make the film in any way watchable. Their lively and fun performances elevate the film and the sooner they get their own spin-off the richer the Marvel universe will be. With all the talk of the casting in Black Panther, it's genuinely impressive that so few have spoken about just how strong the female cast is.

Black Panther is an oddity, it's not offensively bad in the way that says Avengers 2 or Thor 2 or Iron Man 2 was. It's also at times rather spritely and fun but never when our hero is onscreen, in fact, the film repeatedly comes alive when concerned with the supporting cast leaving you to wonder just who Black Panther is? At best he's a second-rate Bond clone only he's not in on the joke and played far too seriously. The whole casino scene feels like it was lifted from one of the Daniel Craig films and they even have their own Q here only with dumber gadgets.

Black Panther is a disappointment, a by the numbers Marvel film that considering the talent involved should have been a turning point for the franchise. But rather it's simply more cookie cutter fare, a film so devoid of risk or original ideas that you get the impression that at this stage Marvel are simply throwing some ideas in a hat and then picking them at random. I wanted to not just like Black Panther but possibly love it, the idea of a film challenging and exploring race relations in the modern world is fascinating and bold and sadly Marvel just don't have the balls to follow through. Cheap looking, poorly written and worst of all boring, Black Panther is another miss for Marvel and further proof that people will champion any film so long as you put some spandex on the cast.

Hopefully, the inevitable sequel will ditch T'Challa and concentrate instead on the female cast as they are the real stars of the Marvel universe. I would happily pay double to see an Avengers film that had no Iron Man, Thor, Captain America or any other generic superhero but instead was made up by an all female line-up of Black Panthers.

al87987

Very disappointed in this film, it could be because I saw it after watching the amazing Infinity wars in the cinema last week, or that recent offerings like Ragnarok have raised the bar overall, but I was really looking fwd to this and it just didn't work for me.

When I heard Coogler and MBJ were collaborating again I was thrilled as Fruitvale was a very good debut and Creed was the best sports film in a long time, that one shot fight scene being one of the best things I've ever seen on screen but this movie had nothing like that for me or any real memorable moments. One of the MCU's most forgettable for me.

Unearthly

Have to say this rivals Hulk for me as the worst MCU film yet.

Very disappointed as I was most looking forward to it after his appearance in Civil War.

pinksoir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lengthy review

I agree with all of this. Thought the setting had great potential, with a genuinely interesting premise and the possibility for telling a unique story. Exploiting the idea of 'lost kingdoms of Africa' provides potentially fantastic scope but it was just completely bland. Typical of Marvel, really. Such a waste.

I think one of the main issues of superhero films is that the protagonists are completely unrelatable. Nothing human about superhumans - nothing to identify with - so any half baked messages are completely lost. Try as I might, I can't care about any of the characters.

I had some hopes for this, but it was just standard marvel fare. I'm genuinely at a loss as to how these things are as popular as they are.

4/10

TerrorFirmer

There's an enormous elephant in the global room and that's the the utter hesitance of many critics to crap on the movie in any way shape or form on the movie for fear of being accused of 'racism'. It's not a great movie, let alone a good movie. In the hierarchy of the MCU, it would belong on the bottom.

That's not to say it's not entertaining, but the fact that RT has it above the likes of The Dark Knight, as well as every other MCU movie to date, is just utterly absurd.

In the context of cinema, it doesn't even do anything new or fresh in terms of addressing race issues....but because "marvel" and "africa" it suddenly becomes the most important feature in minority cinema to ever grace the silver screen.

In my opinion, it was entertaining, but ranks far below the likes of Ragnarock, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, etc.

I was at a screening full of black people and they actually stood up and screamed and applauded everytime a black person...well...did anything. Fine, but it's a ridiculous step to be equating an onscreen presence with actual cinematic achievement. Where were these people, in more recent times, with the likes of Blade, Hancock, etc?

To be fair it's miles better than Iron Man 2-3 and Thor 2

darced

This post has been deleted.

fritzelly

Got about halfway thru the film the other night and fell asleep - it's a bit of a snoozefest that jumps all over the place. Hoping the second half is better but reading some of the comments here I doubt it.
All the tribal stuff I can see on NatGeo

AllForIt

I'm utterly shocked by my disinterest in this movie after especially listening to a rave review on BBC news film review some time ago. It's Avengers:Age of Ultron level stuff...either that or I'm incredibly racist.

AllForIt

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair it's miles better than Iron Man 2-3 and Thor 2

It was meant to be fantastic - that's what I heard repeatedly.

Gbear

AllForIt wrote: »

It was meant to be fantastic - that's what I heard repeatedly.

I've seen all of those recently and upon further reflection, I actually don't think there's much between them.

All the bad Marvel films are at least serviceable. Watchable.

yourdeadwright

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm utterly shocked by my disinterest in this movie after especially listening to a rave review on BBC news film review some time ago. It's Avengers:Age of Ultron level stuff...either that or I'm incredibly racist.

The movies was not reviewed for being what it is a movie ,
It's like some kind of reverse racism ,
If you think about it the movie only got rave reviews because its made by black director with all black cast, But it was a bad movie ,so is that not racist ? 
Saying ah its a crap movie but its full of black folks so its a decent effort so we will give it a rave review
It really shouldn't matter who made the move or what race the movie features, The movie should be judged on being a movie and this was awful ,
Its the very bottom of the MCU ,

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The whole casino scene feels like it was lifted from one of the Daniel Craig films

Actually, the casino set looked just like the Macau casino set from Skyfall.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Actually, the casino set looked just like the Macau casino set from Skyfall.

That is what I was saying.

pixelburp

yourdeadwright wrote: »

[...]
It really shouldn't matter who made the move or what race the movie features, The movie should be judged on being a movie and this was awful ,
Its the very bottom of the MCU ,

No art exists within a vacuum, and no movie exists outside of the context in which is was made. Plenty of films' own fame are EXACTLY because of "who made the move", or when/how/why it was made. Productions such as Blade Runner are almost precisely as mythological as they are BECAUSE of the production, that it was a flop etc. etc.

Whether you like it or not, Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance, albeit primarily through the lens of African-American points of view (I've been more than a little curious as to whether it holds as many implications for Black Britains, French etc. as the conversations have tended to be from an American perspective). Just because most of us here are a bunch of white Irish folks doesn't negate the relevance the film has Stateside, or to those who felt the MCU lacked a certain relevance or representation.

No, it doesn't automatically give the film brownie points, and there has been lots of reviews that are fair and balanced about Black Panther's failings (not least on this very thread, I'm guessing the sudden resurgence is down to its appearance on the 'usual' alternative channels), but of those flaws they're not inherently down to the film's racial or cultural points of view - just some of the usual problems with the MCU franchise of late.

I liked the film despite the flaws, thought it a return to form for the MCU, and while I don't think it quite deserved all the hype, said hype was from a perspective or background I simply don't possess - so why worry?

So there's a bit of social backslapping about the belated presence of a black mainstream superhero in the MCU - so what? Just let folks have their celebration, it hurts precisely nobody.

yourdeadwright

pixelburp wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

[...]
It really shouldn't matter who made the move or what race the movie features, The movie should be judged on being a movie and this was awful ,
Its the very bottom of the MCU ,

No art exists within a vacuum, and no movie exists outside of the context in which is was made. Plenty of films' own fame are EXACTLY because of "who made the move", or when/how/why it was made. Productions such as Blade Runner are almost precisely as mythological as they are BECAUSE of the production, that it was a flop etc. etc.

Whether you like it or not, Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance, albeit primarily through the lens of African-American points of view (I've been more than a little curious as to whether it holds as many implications for Black Britains, French etc. as the conversations have tended to be from an American perspective). Just because most of us here are a bunch of white Irish folks doesn't negate the relevance the film has Stateside, or to those who felt the MCU lacked a certain relevance or representation.

No, it doesn't automatically give the film brownie points, and there has been lots of reviews that are fair and balanced about Black Panther's failings (not least on this very thread, I'm guessing the sudden resurgence is down to its appearance on the 'usual' alternative channels), but of those flaws they're not inherently down to the film's racial or cultural points of view - just some of the usual problems with the MCU franchise of late.

I liked the film despite the flaws, thought it a return to form for the MCU, and while I don't think it quite deserved all the hype, said hype was from a perspective or background I simply don't possess - so why worry?

So there's a bit of social backslapping about the belated presence of a black mainstream superhero in the MCU - so what? Just let folks have their celebration, it hurts precisely nobody.

I understand Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance and people can have there celebrations that fine iv no issues with that at all,
My issue is with the ratings the movie was getting, it simply does not deserve them ,its a poor movie ,

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

No art exists within a vacuum, and no movie exists outside of the context in which is was made. Plenty of films' own fame are EXACTLY because of "who made the move", or when/how/why it was made. Productions such as Blade Runner are almost precisely as mythological as they are BECAUSE of the production, that it was a flop etc. etc.

Whether you like it or not, Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance, albeit primarily through the lens of African-American points of view (I've been more than a little curious as to whether it holds as many implications for Black Britains, French etc. as the conversations have tended to be from an American perspective). Just because most of us here are a bunch of white Irish folks doesn't negate the relevance the film has Stateside, or to those who felt the MCU lacked a certain relevance or representation.

No, it doesn't automatically give the film brownie points, and there has been lots of reviews that are fair and balanced about Black Panther's failings (not least on this very thread, I'm guessing the sudden resurgence is down to its appearance on the 'usual' alternative channels), but of those flaws they're not inherently down to the film's racial or cultural points of view - just some of the usual problems with the MCU franchise of late.

I liked the film despite the flaws, thought it a return to form for the MCU, and while I don't think it quite deserved all the hype, said hype was from a perspective or background I simply don't possess - so why worry?

So there's a bit of social backslapping about the belated presence of a black mainstream superhero in the MCU - so what? Just let folks have their celebration, it hurts precisely nobody.

Ireland has had a very dramatic rise (thanks to th EU in a lot of cases) but I'm genuinely surprised how we, as a former hammered and repressed colony ourselves, cannot appreciate the importance of such a film production.

pixelburp

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I understand Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance and people can have there celebrations that fine iv no issues with that at all,
My issue is with the ratings the movie was getting, it simply does not deserve them ,its a poor movie ,

But that's not what you said earlier; you literally conflated the broadly positive consensus, with it being about black superheroes.

Fair enough if you didn't like the movie, plenty of rave films discussed here have had their contrary opinions down the years - and we're all entitled to them - but you gave no thoughts on why you didn't enjoy the movie, just making a comment along the lines of "well I personally hated it, so everyone else must be pretending to love it for the social conscience factor". It's a bit passive aggressive

If you think about it the movie only got rave reviews because its made by black director with all black cast, But it was a bad movie ,so is that not racist ?
Saying ah its a crap movie but its full of black folks so its a decent effort so we will give it a rave review
It really shouldn't matter who made the move or what race the movie features, The movie should be judged on being a movie and this was awful ,

Darko thats the bet rundown of this movie ive read and matches exactly what i thought of it.

hideously overpraised, wasted its cast, cgi jarringly rubbish.

yourdeadwright

pixelburp wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I understand Black Panther has a lot of cultural significance and people can have there celebrations that fine iv no issues with that at all,
My issue is with the ratings the movie was getting, it simply does not deserve them ,its a poor movie ,

But that's not what you said earlier; you literally conflated the broadly positive consensus, with it being about black superheroes.

Fair enough if you didn't like the movie, plenty of rave films discussed here have had their contrary opinions down the years - and we're all entitled to them - but you gave no thoughts on why you didn't enjoy the movie, just making a comment along the lines of "well I personally hated it, so everyone else must be pretending to love it for the social conscience factor". It's a bit passive aggressive

If you think about it the movie only got rave reviews because its made by black director with all black cast, But it was a bad movie ,so is that not racist ?
Saying ah its a crap movie but its full of black folks so its a decent effort so we will give it a rave review
It really shouldn't matter who made the move or what race the movie features, The movie should be judged on being a movie and this was awful ,

I clearly said it only got rave REVEIWs because it was all black cast,
The REVIEW of it being a great movie which it is not ,
Celebrate it for its culture reasons that fine no problem but to give it rave REVEIWS is wrong as its simply not a good movie ,

pixelburp

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I clearly said it only got rave REVEIWs because it was all black cast,
The REVIEW of it being a great movie which it is not ,
Celebrate it for its culture reasons that fine no problem but to give it rave REVEIWS is wrong as its simply not a good movie ,

Right, so that's exactly what I just said you're saying; we're all suckered into hyping the film because it's full of black folks.

You keep saying it's a bad movie as if this is demonstrable fact, but not bothering to share with us WHY you think it's a bad movie. It shouldn't need reminding that film discussion is subjective.

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I clearly said it only got rave REVEIWs because it was all black cast,
The REVIEW of it being a great movie which it is not ,
Celebrate it for its culture reasons that fine no problem but to give it rave REVEIWS is wrong as its simply not a good movie ,

Maybe some people just have different tastes to you. I found the film a slog but can understand why some people love it. At the end of the day, it's a film about a man who dresses in a catsuit and prances around in front of unconvincing green screen. I do find it funny that all the people celebrating it for being a black superhero film ignore the fact that the day is saved by the only white man there, seriously if you remove generic white man number 1 then the villains plan to send weapons out would have been a success.

yourdeadwright

pixelburp wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I clearly said it only got rave REVEIWs because it was all black cast,
The REVIEW of it being a great movie which it is not ,
Celebrate it for its culture reasons that fine no problem but to give it rave REVEIWS is wrong as its simply not a good movie ,

Right, so that's exactly what I just said you're saying; we're all suckered into hyping the film because it's full of black folks.

You keep saying it's a bad movie as if this is demonstrable fact, but not bothering to share with us WHY you think it's a bad movie. It shouldn't need reminding that film discussion is subjective.

Not you said the movie has other merits that people will celebrate , I agree with you on that but  I'm saying as a movie its terrible and doesn't deserve rave reviews ,
If you read my previous post I said why  ,
Terrible CGI, fight scenes are awful , Its very boring and they kill the best character way to early,
It's on the lower end of the scale of the MCU

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I clearly said it only got rave REVEIWs because it was all black cast,
The REVIEW of it being a great movie which it is not ,
Celebrate it for its culture reasons that fine no problem but to give it rave REVEIWS is wrong as its simply not a good movie ,

Maybe some people just have different tastes to you. I found the film a slog but can understand why some people love it. At the end of the day, it's a film about a man who dresses in a catsuit and prances around in front of unconvincing green screen. I do find it funny that all the people celebrating it for being a black superhero film ignore the fact that the day is saved by the only white man there, seriously if you remove generic white man number 1 then the villains plan to send weapons out would have been a success.

I agree with you ,
And for the record as a black super hero movie Blade wipes the floor with it ,but again that's just my opinion ,

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe some people just have different tastes to you. I found the film a slog but can understand why some people love it. At the end of the day, it's a film about a man who dresses in a catsuit and prances around in front of unconvincing green screen. I do find it funny that all the people celebrating it for being a black superhero film ignore the fact that the day is saved by the only white man there, seriously if you remove generic white man number 1 then the villains plan to send weapons out would have been a success.

... and if that one gunner on the Star Destroyer in a New Hope had more initiative, and just shot at the escape pod with the droids on board, the Empire would have won *shrug*. I think a lot of films rely on those weird little anomalies of scripting; that small coincidence or close-shave that people forget the entire narrative hinges upon.

I actually quite liked the little thread with Martin Freeman's CIA agent; he'd been a bit of a useless character in the MCU generally, the bumbling bureaucrat type just getting in the way. Letting him be part of the big multi-scene finale seemed like a fair way to get him involved.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

... and if that one gunner on the Star Destroyer in a New Hope had more initiative, and just shot at the escape pod with the droids on board, the Empire would have won *shrug*. I think a lot of films rely on those weird little anomalies of scripting; that small coincidence or close-shave that people forget the entire narrative hinges upon.

I actually quite liked the little thread with Martin Freeman's CIA agent; he'd been a bit of a useless character in the MCU generally, the bumbling bureaucrat type just getting in the way. Letting him be part of the big multi-scene finale seemed like a fair way to get him involved.

I was wondering where he was during Infinity War as I assumed that they were setting him up to play a part. I think that Black Panther like a lot of Marvel films is that the hero is the least interesting thing about it, I would love to see an all-female superhero film made up of the supporting cast of BP.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

I was wondering where he was during Infinity War as I assumed that they were setting him up to play a part. I think that Black Panther like a lot of Marvel films is that the hero is the least interesting thing about it, I would love to see an all-female superhero film made up of the supporting cast of BP.

Not sure about it being a general problem, but it did seem ironic that having addressed the issue of the MCU having flimsy villains, Black Panther gave itself the problem of a protagonist less interesting than the titular character's support network. I'd much rather see a Black Panther 2 following the sister, Shuri than more 'heavy lies the crown' narratives revolving around her brother.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Not sure about it being a general problem, but it did seem ironic that having addressed the issue of the MCU having flimsy villains, Black Panther gave itself the problem of a protagonist less interesting than the titular character's support network. I'd much rather see a Black Panther 2 following the sister, Shuri than more 'heavy lies the crown' narratives revolving around her brother.

I think a large part of the villains working both here and in IW is down to their motives being almost pure. Both villains are less concerned with taking over the planet as they were in creating a better future, sure their actions may have been misguided but it's certainly more interesting than another film in which a floating thing threatens a city.

johnny_ultimate

What sets this at the top of the Marvel pile for me is that it's one of the first in the series with a unique, interesting voice.

Of all the directors to inherit a Marvel film, Ryan Coogler is one of the first to come out of it and still make a film that unmistakably fits recognisably within his filmography. Waititi did a decent job in that respect too, although that was an easier fit given quirky, irreverent comedy is a more natural fit for the template set by the films so far (his New Zealand films remain obviously superior, mind). But Coogler previously worked in effectively social realism, which is a far less obvious fit. In no meaningful sense is Black Panther a social realist film - it's the frickin' opposite, in fact :pac: But at the same time Coogler managed to work the themes and settings that have preoccupied his work into what could have been an incompatible frame. When I watch any of the Russo films, I see films that could have been made by any basically competent director - they're put together coherently and efficiently, but with little in the way of a distinguishing voice. When I watch Black Panther, I see what is undoubtedly a Ryan Coogler film, which was a pleasant surprise.

It's not just Coogler's voice though: that his film has resonated so strongly in the US is no small proof of that. It's rare for a film of this scale to even somewhat capture the zeitgeist of the moment, or to in any way reflect recognisable reality. This may not have been the first black superhero movie, but it's certainly one of the first (outside some blaxploitation stuff, or parodies like Blankman) to go beyond simply casting an African-American star in the lead role.

Does all that make Black Panther a good film on its own? No: but its fascinating villain, superb ensemble cast, effective world-building and enjoyable genre-hopping help elevate beyond a mere cultural event. It's quite a few steps away from being truly great: Coogler (or, perhaps more likely, his second unit team) struggles with the action; some of the CG is undoubtedly ropey (although on the big screen scenes like the clifftop duelling arena actually looked pretty decent); a hero outshone by those around him; and the whole thing is obviously still limited in several significant ways by being a big-budget Marvel film. But for me it was the welcome step forward Marvel has needed for quite a few years now. Something even more radical would be nice, of course, but it's a step forward nonetheless. I can easily see where the critical enthusiasm came from in that respect: perhaps some additional excitement due to the US-centric nature of media, but you often see that with zeitgeisty American films.

I'm really interested in seeing what Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck can do with Captain Marvel now - not only because it's the first time a female hero has headlined one of these films (although about bloody time to be fair :pac:) but because it's another novel directorial choice(s). I'd have previously been rather cynical about what two traditionally indie filmmakers can manage when making the leap to Marvel tentpole film - when you hear stories like the Edgar Wright one or even Whedon's experience with Age of Ultron, there was plenty of cause to be cynical about what filmmakers could manage when working with Marvel. But Black Panther gave me some cautious optimism that there's potential for something interesting... even if the third act action setpiece is always forced to intrude on the actual good stuff

pixelburp

Indeed; as the cliché goes, the best villains are those who believe themselves the heroes of their own story. Both Killmonger and Thanos work better than (say) Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy, because of that earnest belief that they're saving the world, not destroying it.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What sets this at the top of the Marvel pile for me is that it's one of the first in the series with a unique, interesting voice.

Of all the directors to inherit a Marvel film, Ryan Coogler is one of the first to come out of it and still make a film that unmistakably fits recognisably within his filmography. Waititi did a decent job in that respect too, although that was an easier fit given quirky, irreverent comedy is a more natural fit for the template set by the films so far (his New Zealand films remain obviously superior, mind). But Coogler previously worked in effectively social realism, which is a far less obvious fit. In no meaningful sense is Black Panther a social realist film - it's the frickin' opposite, in fact :pac: But at the same time Coogler managed to work the themes and settings that have preoccupied his work into what could have been an incompatible frame. When I watch any of the Russo films, I see films that could have been made by any basically competent director - they're put together coherently and efficiently, but with little in the way of a distinguishing voice. When I watch Black Panther, I see what is undoubtedly a Ryan Coogler film, which was a pleasant surprise.

It's not just Coogler's voice though: that his film has resonated so strongly in the US is no small proof of that. It's rare for a film of this scale to even somewhat capture the zeitgeist of the moment, or to in any way reflect recognisable reality. This may not have been the first black superhero movie, but it's certainly one of the first (outside some blaxploitation stuff, or parodies like Blankman) to go beyond simply casting an African-American star in the lead role.

Does all that make Black Panther a good film on its own? No: but its fascinating villain, superb ensemble cast, effective world-building and enjoyable genre-hopping help elevate beyond a mere cultural event. It's quite a few steps away from being truly great: Coogler (or, perhaps more likely, his second unit team) struggles with the action; some of the CG is undoubtedly ropey (although on the big screen scenes like the clifftop duelling arena actually looked pretty decent); a hero outshone by those around him; and the whole thing is obviously still limited in several significant ways by being a big-budget Marvel film. But for me it was the welcome step forward Marvel has needed for quite a few years now. Something even more radical would be nice, of course, but it's a step forward nonetheless.

I'm really interested in seeing what Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck can do with Captain Marvel now - not only because it's the first time a female hero has headlined one of these films (although about bloody time to be fair :pac:) but because it's another novel directorial choice(s). I'd have previously been rather cynical about what two traditionally indie filmmakers can manage when making the leap to Marvel tentpole film - when you hear stories like the Edgar Wright one or even Whedon's experience with Age of Ultron, there was plenty of cause to be cynical about what filmmakers could manage when working with Marvel. But Black Panther gave me some cautious optimism that there's potential for something interesting... even if the third act action setpiece is always forced to intrude on the actual good stuff

With you on all points barring the Russos did Winter Soldier which was a solid spy film (in a fantastical setting) and it takes more than just competent directing to not have Infinity War an absolute mess.

kerplun k

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed; as the cliché goes, the best villains are those who believe themselves the heroes of their own story. Both Killmonger and Thanos work better than (say) Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy, because of that earnest belief that they're saving the world, not destroying it.

Marvel has gotten better with the villains.
Funnily enough, I thought Michael Keaton’s, Adrian Toomes was a great villain. Who, I don’t think seen himself as a hero. His motivations were purely financial, with him almost breaking bad due to bad luck with his work. It was generic enough, but Keaton is a terrific actor, and being a family man, just about gave him enough context to be an effective villain.

Gbear

kerplun k wrote: »

Marvel has gotten better with the villains.
Funnily enough, I thought Michael Keaton’s, Adrian Toomes was a great villain. Who, I don’t think seen himself as a hero. His motivations were purely financial, with him almost breaking bad due to bad luck with his work. It was generic enough, but Keaton is a terrific actor, and being a family man, just about gave him enough context to be an effective villain.

He kinda was the hero as well though, because it was him against 'the Man' so to speak.

Sometimes they haven't taken the time because they're trying to do a lot of characterisation of the protagonists.

You can give GOTG a pass because of what they needed to get done with 5 other characters. A cartoonish, po-faced villain kinda worked as a contrast.
It'll be interesting to see what they do with him in Captain Marvel - hopefully they flesh him out a little more - maybe we'll see why he becomes the way he is in GOTG.

Thor 2 is probably the biggest failure in that regard. I liked the look and feel of that film - the design of the Elves, the fight scenes with portals were really well done but god were they boring.
Yellow Jacket wasn't that great, but he at least was a bit more overtly crazy and fun.
Iron Man 2 and 3 failed more in execution than because the villain didn't work in theory - Sam Rockwell was a great loser villain and Whiplash's story made sense and worked well with Tony's sense of self-discovery and there were some good ideas in 3 but the finale kinda ripped up all the good work they did for the sake of an inane, weightless finale.

Captain America's have all been quite good, I thought. Red Skull hamming it up was good fun and then Zemo and Shield Executive Man were a bit more grounded in this age of authoritarian government overreach.

Killmonger had interesting motivations and it seems to have struck a chord with some in the US in particular. It's just a bit of a pity they kinda undercut that by underdeveloping his character. He's kinda just a one-note psychopathic murderer and his motivations seem more in service to that than believably because of some grander idea.

I wish we'd seen him finding his dad's body, showing him growing up in the system, maybe falling in with a bad crowd, getting "saved" by the military but showing how it was just an outlet for his more increasingly violent side. Maybe show him going back home and struggling to deal with the down time, and with how worse he and other black people get treated.

Or maybe show a weird relationship where he likes killing, but he begins to see himself having more in common with his victims than he does with the people he's serving.

There's a lot of untouched meat on the bone there that could be loosely implied, that they skimmed over so we could have some utterly pointless car chase scene or whatever.

If it's a case where they've got this director in with a vision and then they elbow in and force him to put in stuff he doesn't want to fill the explosions quota, or whether he instigated them and isn't very good at action, either way it feels like he was a little out of his element and the film didn't work as a coherent whole.

Slydice

Some Infinity War spoilers:

jones

Just finished this on Blu-ray. After all the hype reading reviews I definitely came away slightly disappointed. I thought it was average enough marvel fair and definitely not in the same league as winter soldier, civil war and first avengers. Hell thought infinity war was better than it too.

All the talk about marvel sorting out their Villan problem peaked my attention but I thought they dropped the ball on the villan big time. He started off great then just turned into general mental bad guy I was waiting for some nuance from him that seemed to be promised but it never appeared.

7/10 for me and I don't really see what all the fuss was about. Music was great and visually thought it was excellent in places.

South Park spot on
This film is so overrated

abcabc123123

Fred The Red wrote: »

South Park spot on
This film is so overrated

Tend to agree. I enjoyed it but it's another generic Marvel origin story. Has very little to distinguish it from the others. I really wish they'd stop having the hero have a big final fight against an evil version of themselves with the same powers. It sucked in Iron Man, and in Hulk... and Captain America... and Ant-Man... and Dr Strange... and in this too.

brianregan09

I think Doctor Strange is the odd one out there , the final battle in that was brilliant and original

pixelburp

I liked Black Panther for its characters, and a slightly deeper premise than usual, but Dr Strange dropped the ball by having a magical time travel McGuffin and doing nothing with it (except in the very last scene). Instead it was a shopping list of Origin Story tropes with no variation, making no effort to play with the tools it had. It could have been a great "timey wimey" adventure, to use the parlance of Dr Who, play the story out In Media Res or pull a Back to the Future 2 - anything! - but instead was just painfully uninspired, linear and generic.

abcabc123123

brianregan09 wrote: »

I think Doctor Strange is the odd one out there , the final battle in that was brilliant and original

Fair enough. Full disclosure: I didn't actually watch all of Dr Strange, got bored once he started his training, skipped forward to see what it was like later on and then switched off. I watched a bit of the final scenes with Dormammu (spelling?) and KISS Mads Mikkelsen and it seemed a bit different to the usual, but I wasn't arsed going back to re-watch it.

Have watched all of the others though!

yourdeadwright

jones wrote: »

Just finished this on Blu-ray. After all the hype reading reviews I definitely came away slightly disappointed. I thought it was average enough marvel fair and definitely not in the same league as winter soldier, civil war and first avengers. Hell thought infinity war was better than it too.

All the talk about marvel sorting out their Villan problem peaked my attention but I thought they dropped the ball on the villan big time. He started off great then just turned into general mental bad guy I was waiting for some nuance from him that seemed to be promised but it never appeared.

7/10 for me and I don't really see what all the fuss was about. Music was great and visually thought it was excellent in places.

Let be fair its one of the worst marvel movies , if it wasn't an all black cast it would not have got any of the hype it got,

black, white, red ,yellow, it was a pretty poor movie which is a shame as black panther is one of the cooler character's

Kirby

Yes but Killmonger is apart from most Marvel villains in that he was.....right. About nearly everything.

Coupled with the fact that his motives are perfectly understandable. Like, he wasn't twirling his mustache....you could completely see his point of view and reasons he had for doing what he did.

Its also the reason I liked the Vulture from spiderman. He got f*cked over too and wasn't trying to destroy the world.....he was in it for the money. He also didn't kill Peter or out him as spiderman. Zumo would fall into the category too.

Compare that to what we usually get.
Yarr I'm an evil Nazi that wants ultimate power.
Yarr I'm a bald guy in an Iron man suit who wants ultimate power.
Yarr I'm a Dark elf who wants ultimate power.
Yarr I'm a .....CEO that wants ultimate power.
Yarr I'm Mads Mikkelsen and I want Ultimate power and weird eyes.
Yarr I'm a Vibranium A.I. that wants ultimate power and to kill everyone.
Yarr I'm a big blue Titan who wants ultimate power and to kill half of everyone.

Bad guys are better when they have some depth.

kerplun k

Kirby wrote: »

Yarr I'm a .....CEO that wants ultimate power

Cough..... Alan Horn.

mloc123

Black Panther is a movie made by a committee of SJWs...