5 ms·
> I've sat out of the whole superhero franchise for, what, over a decade or so now? I just tried to figure out whether I'd recommend any of the Marvel films on
by asark 7y ago
> I've sat out of the whole superhero franchise for, what, over a decade or so now?
I just tried to figure out whether I'd recommend any of the Marvel films on their own raw merit to someone without interest in the whole series and... no? Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy 2 if you like sci-fi. Solid theme, better writing than most, fairly good humor. Maybe the first Iron Man since it stands alone pretty well and it's not too hard to just stop there, satisfied, having basically seen what about half the rest of the movies do (god, there are what, 22 or 23 now?), entirely. Interesting perspective to think about them from.
If you have any interest in Marvel superheroes whatsoever I'd recommend Into the Spiderverse as the best single movie they've put out. It's animated, not part of their live-action "universe".
But yeah, none of it's Hitchcock or Renoir, at all. Or even upper-tier Spielberg. Well, maybe Into the Spiderverse hits almost that level, at least.
[EDIT] I don't mean to be too harsh to them, overall they're an incredible achievement in consistency, with only a couple being truly terrible (my attempt to give Thor 2 a second chance was... not successful, only made it about 30 minutes) which is pretty nuts, even for by-the-numbers filmmaking. At least four of the five Avengers entries are maybe the most flawlessly-executed high fan service in the history of ever (2 was a bit of a misstep—pulled their punches, I think, though even it's just shy of belonging with the others). But yeah, "would you recommend any of these to a film fan, not a blockbuster movies fan, who doesn't want to sit through 50 hours to see the whole thing?". That's a toughy. Maybe those couple, that's about it.
- ghaff 7y agoI'd probably recommend the initial Guardians of the Galaxy although I almost feel that's a cheat because it's not really a superhero film in the usual vein. Same with Deadpool. Iron Man is probably as good a choice as any for a standalone Marvel film. One problem is that the template for a modern big budget action film, which includes all the superhero films, weighs things down with so many explosions and special effects and just non-stop action sequences that they're all a bit exhausting and tend to overwhelm any humor or character interactions on the screen.
- idhindsight 7y agoYour last point has been exactly my sticking point with most/all of these films. We went as a family to see Avengers: Age of Ultron, and about halfway through, my then-7-year-old son asked me when it would be over. It's just too much overstimulation, far too little plot. Star Wars: Rogue One was an identical film experience.
- asark 7y agoAge of Ultron's probably the worst offender in the series for—call it the Man of Steel effect, where there's a 20-minute (or longer...) "final fight" and I just wanted to take a nap by maybe the 5min mark. Almost all of them do it a little, though, even Guardians 2. The first Avengers film is notable for having precisely that sort of scene but being engaging nearly the entire time. Rogue One was a frustrating near-miss. Leaning into genre tropes adjacent to those that were such a part of Star Wars (the original gigantic genre-pastiche film) was such a good idea, and man, it almost worked. I think they just didn't quite have enough confidence in that idea and hedged their bets too much, and of course couldn't resist doing the Interminably Long Gigantic Big Explosions Action Scene. That aside, the fleet arriving and immediate aftermath of that is maybe the only time any of the new movies have given me childlike "Star Wars Feels" like several of the moments in the original trilogy do, so there's that.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoRogue One was the only recent franchise blockbuster that came close to having a soul. All the others seem to be a formulaic blend of running, shouting, shooting, CGI explodium, cartoon villains of astounding power and limited emotional depth, wisecracks™, on-the-nose moralising, and fresh-out-of-the-can sentiment. But these movies sell. More thoughtful slower movies don't. It's a feedback loop. The studios pander to teen/young adult audiences, older audiences stay away, and the movies become younger, teenier, and less and less distinctive.
- mav3rick 7y ago
- maxerickson 7y agoIf you aren't interested in super hero movies, just not watching them is a great option. Black Panther is probably the first one to watch as a standalone.
- asark 7y agoI wish the first half or so of Black Panther had stuck to the villain as the perspective character. It could have been outstanding, and not just by the standards of Marvel films. That's me Monday morning quarterbacking, of course, and I'm sure it's pretty hard to know what'll work before the film's made, and harder still to make the call to break from a proven formula.
- amyjess 7y agoI'd probably go with Black Panther or Doctor Strange. Captain America: The First Avenger wouldn't be a bad recommendation either (and follow it up with the Agent Carter TV series, which is one of the finest examples of dieselpunk I've seen).
- meheleventyone 7y agoHands down Thor: Ragnarok. It’s utterly hilarious and I dislike most of the other Marvel movies. Into the Spiderverse is absolutely great as well.
- asark 7y agoI'd think Ragnarok doesn't work too well unless you've at least got the gist of several of the other films, like the first two Thors (which... ugh, especially 2), probably the first two Avengers, Civil War AKA Avengers 2.5 which in turn drags in the first two Captain America movies (you'd think it should drag in Iron Man 3 too, at least, but they just kinda ignored what happened in that movie for some reason, so it doesn't). Especially lots of the jokes, but also much of the character development. Could be wrong about that.
- strictnein 7y agoInto the Spiderverse is the best Marvel movie and an absolute visual spectacle.