The "Mowgli" Moment

When "The Cloverfield Paradox" was sold to Netflix earlier this year and made a surprise premiere after the Superbowl, I thought that it was a clever stunt, and might point to the studios coming around to doing business with Netflix again in certain circumstances.  And now along comes "Mowgli," the Warner Brothers adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book," that was supposed to have a theatrical release in October. It is by far the largest and most prominent title that Netflix has acquired from a major studio so far, with several celebrity names voicing the animal characters, including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, and Benedict Cumberbatch.  

Frankly, "Mowgli" was plagued from bad luck from the start.  It's one of several recent projects trying to hit on becoming the next big franchise by rebooting classic material with modern sensibilities.  After losing multiple directors, ultimately Andy Serkis was brought on to helm the project. Production delays meant that it would have to be released after Disney's adaptation of "The Jungle Book" in 2016, which was a massive hit.  The marketing initially tried to paint "Mowgli" as a darker and more serious film to try and distance it from the Disney feature. However, more recent trailers have done an about face to try and appeal to families. Apparently the response to Warner's efforts haven't been encouraging.  

The acquisition is being viewed as bad news for the film, an admission that Warner Bros. has no faith in a theatrical release for it.  However, what I find interesting here is that Warner Bros. decided it was in their best financial interests to go to Netflix with the title.  Ten years ago it would have gone straight to DVD, but the DVD market has dried up. Five years ago they might have spent millions retooling it, or simply let it crash and burn at the box office in the post-holiday winter months.  Now? Warners gets to recoup some of their costs, the film won't be stuck in limbo where audiences can't see it indefinitely, and Netflix has another shiny new piece of studio-produced content for their library. The fact that it may not be any good doesn't mean that viewers won't watch it.        

Netflix has continued spending vast sums on content, and plans to release over sixty feature films in 2018 alone.  Their Oscar slate is particularly strong this year, including films from Alfonso Cuaron, the Coen Brothers, and Paul Greengrass.  Next year will see the release of the long awaited Martin Scorsese project, "The Irishman." The rest of Hollywood may not take them seriously, but I think that if they keep this up, Netflix is  going to be the de facto sixth major studio, after Disney and FOX finish their merger. At this point they're simply too big and too influential to be ignored. Netflix is the default choice when it comes to online viewing.  

However, it's not likely to stay that way.  The streaming world has gotten much more crowded over the past few years.  The biggest new challenger is Disney, which is planning to pull most of its current catalogue from Netflix after their content deal expires, and launch a major streaming service in 2019.  This includes all the recent Disney, PIXAR, Marvel and "Star Wars" films, and a big slate of original films and series. Notably, a couple of projects that were originally announced to be theatrical releases, including the family comedy "Magic Camp" and the Anna Kendrick film "Noelle," will be premiering there instead.    

Now, Warners doesn't appear to be interested in launching its own streaming service at the moment, though it probably could.  They have a stake in Hulu, which currently has a good chunk of popular WB television shows and films available. However, Warners has also made deals to license their content to other services.  HBO Now has the more recent films. Older classic films are available through Filmstruck. Warners is launching a streaming service for their DC content, but this is a pretty niche operation, featuring the edgy live-action "Titans" and animated "Justice League: Outsiders" as initial offerings.  

In short, Warners making a deal with Netflix to get "Mowgli" off its hands makes sense for them.  I expect this won't be the last time we see it happen either. In the streaming age, Netflix essentially has replaced the direct-to-video option, and its pockets are deep enough that it can make attractive deals.  Someday Warners might go the Disney route, or another streaming service might offer a better option, but not today, in 2018.

I'm also a little worried about all these smaller films skipping theatrical runs and going straight to streaming.  It really doesn't bode well for theaters, especially since MoviePass has folded. It looks like the everyone's doubling down on the tentpoles more than ever.  We'd better keep an eye on that.

     

---

No More Racebending?

I've been meaning to write about a particular trend that's emerged recently, related to the casting choices on various movies.  Specifically, we've seen a big shift in the way that certain roles are being handled. Ed Skrein deciding to leave the role of Ben Daimio in the "Hellboy" reboot last August seemed to be a major turning point.  The character is ethnically Japanese, but Skrein is Caucasian. After some outcry about the character being whitewashed, Skrein bowed out, specifically citing these concerns as the reason for his departure. The part was then quickly recast with Daniel Dae Kim, an Asian actor.

I found this very encouraging, as someone who's been rooting for more on-screen diversity for ages, but one incident doesn't really make a trend.  Then came the news that Scarlett Johansson was starring in and producing "Rub and Tug," a biopic about a transgender man, Dante "Tex" Gill. The trans community made their displeasure known, and a little over a week later Johansson announced she was leaving the project due to the response.  The film was cancelled shortly thereafter. Johansson was at the center of the whitewashing controversy about last year's "Ghost in the Shell," where she played the originally Japanese Major Kusanagi. I assume that she wanted to avoid a similar situation developing with "Rub and Tug."

So after years of escalating criticism, which has become more and more visible thanks to social media, I think we are in a moment where diverse casting is not only considered a positive, but a requirement.  Suddenly it's become a priority to make sure that a Middle Eastern or handicapped or LGBT or other minority-specific role goes to an actor that is authentic to that experience. It used to be that you cast the biggest name that you could get, but now you run the risk of subjecting that name to merciless online scrutiny if that actor is deemed as unsuitable for a particular role.  So no more trying to pass off Jake Gyllenhaal as Persian, or Johnny Depp as Native American. No more weak excuses about there not being suitable talent, especially as the actors themselves are now actively taking a stance against whitewashing practices.

It's a little breathtaking how quickly this has happened.  Scarlett Johansson originally responded to the criticisms of her playing Gill by invoking other cisgendered actors who had played trans characters, including Jeffrey Tambor, Felicity Huffman, and Jared Leto - who won an Oscar for "Dallas Buyers Club" in 2014.  That was before Laverne Cox on "Orange is the New Black," however. This was before "Tangerine" and "Pose" and "A Fantastic Woman." That was before it became abundantly clear that there were talented trans actors who could play those trans characters. Thanks in part to the content explosion happening with television and web series right now, suddenly the acting talent pool has massively diversified.  Now there's no excuse not to cast a deaf actress in "A Quiet Place" or a Middle Eastern actor as Freddie Mercury in "Bohemian Rhapsody."
      

Still, I don't think that this recent push for authenticity is going to mean the end of problematic casting in the future.  Creative and financial considerations will continue to affect casting choices, and the gains we've seen could easily disappear.  Right now this is a trend, one that has the possibility of becoming something more permanent, but we're not there yet. Also, I feel that it's important to reiterate that given a level playing field, there's nothing inherently wrong with a cis actor playing a trans actor, or even an actor of one ethnicity playing another, when they're doing it respectfully.  Back in the '80s, Caucasian actress Linda Hunt played an Asian male dwarf, and was brilliant. The problem is that the playing field isn't level right now, and onscreen representation continues to be something to strive for.

So for now, I'm going to keep cheering for each new bit of progress that I see being made.  And for those who fret about Skrein or Johansson losing out on roles, remember that they have plenty of other opportunities - the "Black Widow" movie is finally moving forward, and Skrein has five film credits this year alone.  On the other hand, there are only so many roles that Daniel Dae Kim or Laverne Cox are considered for, simply because they're not white hetero, cisgender actors. Until that changes, we gotta keep fighting the good fight.

---

Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film?!

What a day.  I knew that the declining ratings for the Oscar telecast were causing AMPAS some dismay, but the changes announced in the letter they sent out a few days ago point to full blown panic behind the scenes.  How else to explain these latest developments? Not only are they going to pre-tape some of the more obscure categories to help cut the ceremony down to three hours, but there's the sinister announcement of a new category aiming to recognize "outstanding achievement in popular film."  What the hell is that?!

Let's put aside the pre-taping of winners for now, which I'm not exactly happy about, but I think that everyone could live with it if corners have to be cut.  The Tonys already do something similar. The bulk of this post will be dissecting this "popular film" award, which has rightly drawn the most attention and ire.  The thinking behind the announcement is pretty clear. Oscar telecast ratings are higher when more popular box office hits are in contention, so AMPAS has an interest in seeing more blockbusters get more nominations.  That was a major reason why the number of Best Picture nominees was increased back in 2009. The trouble is that those extra nomination slots didn't go to the blockbusters, but often to more prestige films.

Most of the Best Picture winners and nominees over the past few years have been tiny, low budget movies like "Moonlight" and "Spotlight" that hardly anyone saw.  Sure, "Dunkirk" and "The Shape of Water" were legitimate hits, but they've been outnumbered by obscure movies like "Phantom Thread" and "Darkest Hour." Meanwhile, the real box office winners like "Avengers" and "Star Wars" never get more than a few technical nods.  The tastes of moviegoing audiences and the Academy have increasingly diverged. At this point we're decades away from the era where "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings" were winners at both the box office and the Oscar podium.

Getting back to that point is difficult, however.  There's a legitimate argument that the Academy has biases against more populist films, especially genre fare and children's entertainment, that should be corrected.  However, it's also very clear that the composition of moviegoing audiences has changed drastically over the last twenty years. The box office is dominated by lightweight superhero and action franchises, nearly all of them aimed at young adults and children.  The more serious, artistically challenging fare favored by the Academy is still being made, but titles have to fight for the steadily declining pool of adult viewers.

It looks like the Academy chasing after the popular movies necessarily means lowering its standards, and pandering to the tastes of younger audiences.  Frankly, this not a new thing, as the Oscars are an industry award heavily influenced by popular sentiment. These are not a critical or artistic awards voted on by people trying to be impartial.  However, the Oscars have a reputation for honoring quality and have historically been much subtler about tilting the playing field one way or another. They generally do it through obscure rule changes, like who gets to vote on which categories, or the screening requirements for eligibility.

That's why this latest announcement is such a shock.  There is nothing subtle about a whole new category coming out of nowhere, especially one determined by an eligibility  metric that has never been used for Oscars before: box office numbers. Because really, how else do you measure a film's popularity except with box office numbers?  Compare this to the last time we got a new category back in 2001, for Best Animated Film. The stated reasoning was that there was a boom in the number of animated films being produced in the late '90s, creating real competition for an award.  But it sure didn't hurt that those films were suddenly making a lot of money.

It's also difficult to imagine how the category is going to work in practice.  The top five films at the box office in 2017 were "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," "Beauty and the Beast," "The Fate of the Furious," "Despicable Me 3," and "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle."  Do they just automatically get nominations or is there a minimum level of quality they have to meet? Does a panel of voters choose nominees from the top fifty earners of the year as of December 31st?  Do we use domestic or worldwide totals? Do we factor in home media sales? My guess is that the winner will be determined by popular voting by the "Transformers" loving public, which opens up a whole new can of worms logistically.

What gets to me is that there are a lot of other steps that the Academy could have taken to honor and include the blockbusters.  They could have finally approved that outstanding stunt coordinator category. They could have created categories for outstanding visual characters and virtual performances.  They could have made that new category Outstanding Genre Feature, or Outstanding Children's Feature, or Outstanding Franchise Feature even. Instead, we get a mini-People's Choice Award segment mashed into the telecast.  Oh well. I am a little impressed that AMPAS didn't hide their intentions and just came right out and said they wanted more blockbusters in the ceremony.

The prospect of an Oscar going to the next "Minions" movie, however, just makes me die a little inside.

---

Missmediajunkie v. The Tsum Tsums

In a previous post about the Pokemon Go craze, I remarked that the game didn't have much appeal for me because I had never been all that attached to Pokemon. However, if there were ever a Disney branded version of the game, it would be a different story. Classic Disney animation has always been the epicenter of my childhood nostalgia, and it's always been a war between the stringently anti-clutter, anti-merchandise part of my personality, and the instant gratification enabling, media junkie part of me that loves cute stuff. I've always had an addictive personality, and can get carried away with any kind of collecting. I worry that with my completionist impulses, even the most innocuous collection can get out of hand, and I'll wind up spending all of my disposable income on branded junk. And I mean, it could happen pretty easily with Disney merchandise. The mouse doesn't fool around.

I thought something like Pokemon Go would be a perfect solution to this dilemma, since the game is free and all the Pokemon you collect are digital, taking up no real space. So I was very excited to discover "LINE: Disney Tsum Tsum," a mobile video game where you can collect various Disney characters in their Tsum Tsum incarnations. The massively popular Tsum Tsum plushies first came out of Japan in 2013, and spawned their own animated webseries, a Marvel superhero spinoff, and tons of related merchandise. What I found especially attractive was that there were Tsum Tsums for so many of the more obscure Disney characters. There's a "Fantasia" Tsum Tsum set. There's a "Three Caballeros" Tsum Tsum set. There's even a "Pete's Dragon" Tsum Tsum of Elliot the dragon, who I don't ever remember seeing other merchandise for. What Disney nerd could resist?

So I downloaded the game and spent two days playing it. I collected a dozen digital Tsum Tsums and worked my way up to Level 10. And it became very clear to me that 1) I disliked playing the game, and 2) I disliked the Tsum Tsums too. The game is made for touchscreens, and each timed round requires playing connect the dots with your finger and a random assortment of Tsum Tsums as fast as possible. The gameplay was more action-oriented than puzzle-oriented, and gave me a headache from eyestrain after a few hours. There are the usual game mechanics like limited lives with timers, incentives to involve your social network, and in-app purchases, which I didn't much mind. I can see why the game is popular, with the steady stream of rewards opportunities, the spiffy animation, and various "missions" to unlock different achievements. However, I didn't find it fun to play on a fundamental level, and deleted it quickly.

Then there are the Tsum Tsums themselves. Each Tsum Tsum plush is shaped like a cylinder, with a super simplified chibi face on one end, reminiscent of Hello Kitty. These can look pretty cute when the original character is already sort of cylindrical or pillow shaped, like all the animal characters. However, anything remotely humanoid like Elsa from "Frozen" or Han Solo look terrible. Also, the chibi faces are so simplified, often with no mouths, that they often don't look much like the original characters. It was difficult to tell them apart in the digital game, where only the face is visible. The Tinkerbell Tsum Tsum, for instance, is simply a female face with a blonde bun. There's no visible green dress or fairy wings. And where you can see them on the plushie, they're warped by the cylindrical body shape. The iconic silhouette is totally gone. I have a relative who loves and collects Tinkerbell merchandise, but I'd hesitate buying her one of these toys. The Tsum Tsum Tink just doesn't look right to me.

And this is also the reason that I've been resistant to the popular Funko Pop! bobbleheads, which use a similar design aesthetic. And the more recent Disney Ufufy plushie line, where the characters are shaped like eggs instead of cylinders. I quite like some of the redesigns that Disney has done for its characters for other merchandise lines - the Disney Infinity figurines were amazing - but the trend seems to be toward these more Japanese influenced images that I'm not really onboard with. Oh well. If I really want to collect something, there are some Disney character keychains and cel-phone charms that I've been eyeing. Or maybe I'll give that Disney Emoji game a try.

It's just that the Tsum Tsums looked like they would have been perfect. They checked off so many of the boxes I wanted. I guess I'm more stuck on the idea of being a certain kind of fan than, well, actually being fan.
---

Mind the Gap

As we all know, "Game of Thrones" is taking a year off before the final stretch of episodes next year. So is "American Gods" after some production troubles. "Westworld" took an eighteen month break between its first two seasons, and probably won't be seen again until 2020. And your guess is as good as mine as to when we'll see the next seasons of shows like "Black Mirror" or "Fargo."

As the age of Peak TV barrels on, the old network model of a show coming back every fall and running for twenty-odd episodes is no longer a given. Everyone has gotten used to shows premiering year round, running as few as five or six episodes for a full season, and Netflix introduced the concept of making an entire season available all at once. Now longer production cycles are becoming the norm. American television now looks much closer to British television, where multi-year hiatuses between series of shows like "Red Dwarf," "Sherlock," and "Luther" are commonplace. "Doctor Who" famously took a fifteen year break between 1989 and 2005. With the new popularity of revivals, it can be argued that shows like "Arrested Development" and "Roseanne" are simply finally being renewed for more episodes.

The benefits are obvious. Longer production times and limited episode counts mean higher quality and easier scheduling of all the talent involved, who don't have to commit the large amount of time tradition television demands. Now, instead of writing around cast absences and behind-the-scenes upheaval to meet broadcasting deadlines, it's feasible to simply wait a little longer before the next season goes into production. The audience has proven willing to wait for the better shows to return, and often have far too much to watch anyway. Back in the early 2000s, it was only the rare, oddball series like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" or "The Venture Bros." that dared to be off the airwaves for more than twelve months. Now, it's honestly a little surprising when more ambitious series like "Legion" and "The Handmaid's Tale" actually return within a single calendar year.

The nature of television has also changed over the last few cycles, and new seasons of certain television shows are increasingly being treated like events. In a crowded field, the genuine hits can be few and far between. Longer production times mean that the biggest shows like "Game of Thrones" can be kept on the schedules for a few extra seasons. A show that had an off year like "True Detective" can spend some time regrouping and retooling out of the limelight before they return to our screens. I wish more declining series like "The Walking Dead" or "Supernatural" would take a break, letting the creators recharge or at least have more time to generate better material. Longer absences can also help to pump up more audience interest and help the marketing efforts.

It's interesting that Hollywood's film and television production cycles are starting to look alike. Most of the big tentpole blockbusters like the "Fast and the Furious" movies go about two or three years between installments. It's also become more common to see the same talent operating in both worlds. Meryl Streep will be in the second season of "Big Little Lies" as the new villain. Emma Stone and Jonah Hill are headlining "Maniac" for Netflix. Millie Bobby Brown from "Stranger Things" is also starring in the next Legendary Pictures "Godzilla" movie, due next year. And as television becomes more and more ambitious, I expect we'll see the breaks go even longer.

I think about Amazon's upcoming Middle Earth series and Netflix's "Another Life," and HBO's "Watchman" series, and the push for more of these big, effects-heavy projects. And I'd be happy to wait a little longer if it meant that the creators involved could do these shows right. Sure, I'd love to see the next series of "Black Mirror" right now, but I'd rather wait five years for really, really good episodes than have a compromised, rushed handful of episodes on Netflix next month. As American television continues to grow and change, I'm pretty happy that it's starting to develop some patience.

After all, good things come to those who wait. Happy watching.
---

"Avengers: Infinity Wars" (With Spoilers)

All the spoilers ahead. All of them.

I have to hand it to the writers. They knew that the audience was anticipating the deaths of some of the bigger marquee characters, so they went ahead and killed off a big chunk of the cast, leaving most of the big names like Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor to anchor next year' "Avengers." Of course, we know there are Spider-man and Black Panther sequels coming, so it's hard to really feel bad about the whole massacre. Clearly, the deaths are only temporary. I wouldn't even count Gamora and Loki out at this point.

That makes it very difficult to care about the stakes of the cliffhanger, especially as few of the characters give us much reason to be invested in their fates. This is where "Infinity Wars" leans very heavily on the audience's familiarity with the past movies. Why else would we be bothered by the deaths of Bucky and Sam? Or even Black Panther? Actually, looking at the characters who are remaining, it's pretty clear that the Russo brothers are clearing the board of the newer heroes to allow a final hurrah for the original Avengers team before the next phase of the Marvel universe. There probably will be a meaningful death or two next year, but I wouldn't' be surprised if there weren't, and we just end on Tony's wedding extravaganza.

But, assuming that you're a kid in the audience who isn't privy to the meta stuff, "Infinity Wars" looks pretty daring. It's hard to think of another major superhero film that's ended on such a downer since "The Empire Strikes Back." And unlike the recent "The Last Jedi," you really get the impact of the heroes failing over and over again because the narrative is so simple and laid out so clearly. I was predicting the movie to end with Thanos with a completed Infinity Gauntlet snapping his fingers, but seeing the actual aftermath leaves more to chew on until next season - I mean, next year. I really have to hand it to the Russo brothers for juggling so many characters, places, and plot points, keeping the whole works moving along briskly for the entire 160 minute run time.

The downside, of course, is that the whole movie feels very slick and superficial, even though there are some hugely emotional scenes that play out. There is easily enough material here for three full features, or a season of a television show. While some characters like Gamora and Bruce Banner have arcs, and Thanos is pointedly the most humanized of the whole lot, it's frustrating to see so many characters who have so little to do here. It's the little interpersonal moments, like Starlord feeling insecure next to Thor, and Tony Stark in full parent mode with Peter Parker, that are the most entertaining and that I would have loved to see more of. The fun of having a big crossover is seeing all these different characters interact and intermingle in new combinations. That doesn't happen here nearly as much as it should.

I imagine that a miniseries or extended edition format would be necessary to really do this story justice. Maybe then there would be room to really get into how Wanda and Vision's relationship works, or the full trauma of Thanos's past. Because while all the spectacle is well and good, and the scope of the big battles and CGI destruction is suitably epic, it feels like the movie dropped the ball a bit when it came to telling its characters' stories, and it didn't have to. Of course, the big caveat is that the stories aren't finished. There are several things set up, like Banner's difficulties with Hulk, that haven't paid off yet. And with nearly all the Guardians on ice, the focus will be shifting to different characters for the next movie.

Part of the problem, of course, comes down to the nature of the Marvel universe films. They're never really going to be finished, the interesting character stuff will largely happen offscreen, and the next "Avengers" installment is going to be used as a jumping off point for more movies. I suppose it's best to just enjoy the films for the shallow, familiar, noisy pleasures they provide, and appreciate the occasional fun bits of dialogue, and memorable characters. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be incredibly charismatic and interesting to watch, Thor has been greatly improving with each appearance, Elizabeth Olsen sells a lot of heartache, Josh Brolin brought a lot of menace to Thanos, and Tom Holland remains the best Spider-man.

Oh well. I'll definitely be watching the next one to see how it all turns out. I suppose that's really all you need to know.
---

"Avengers: Infinity Wars" (Without Spoilers)

So here we are at last. The super, mega crossover of all the different Marvel films, from "Iron Man" to "Black Panther" is finally upon us, tying together all those little after-credits scenes that have been building up to this movie over the past several years. With dozens of major characters to juggle, and the weight of sky-high expectations and hype, how could "Infinity Wars" possibly be any good? Well, that's the beauty of the whole Marvel franchise. It doesn't really have to be.

So, the big purple alien Thanos (Josh Brolin) has come to Earth, on his quest to collect the six Infinity Stones that will allow him to wipe out half of the life in the universe, because he's fanatically devoted to the cause of curbing overpopulation. One stone is currently with Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), another is with Vision (Paul Bettany), and the opening scenes see Thanos taking one from Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Our heroes are divided into three distinct groups at the outset: Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Peter Parker (Tom Holland), and Strange protecting one stone, Thor and the Guardians of the Galaxy trying to stop Thanos more directly, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and pretty much everyone left over keeping Vision away from Thanos's minions. These minions have names, apparently, but I didn't manage to catch any.

"Infinity War" is relentlessly plot-driven and tightly paced, so even if you have no idea who a particular character is, you understand what they want and what they're doing. The bad guys want all the shiny rocks, and the good guys are trying to stop them. There is almost no time devoted to developing any of the characters, with the exception of Thanos and his estranged foster daughter Gamora (Zoe Saldana), to try and give the audience some insight on why the big bad is on his insane quest, and to try and paint him as something of a tragic figure. It's more than most of the Marvel movies have done for their villains, so I give them points for that. However, it means that most of the other character interactions are reduced to one-liners and quipping. This works in some cases, like the overgrown badboy collective of Stark, Strange, and Starlord (Chris Pratt) butting heads, but not in others. And naturally, the involvement of some characters like Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) feel pointless because they barely get enough screen time to register.

The material with the Guardians comes off the most satisfying because there are more personal stakes, and we really only have Thor as a newcomer to the existing dynamic. The humor works the best, and I found the story more interesting than what we got in "Guardians of the Galaxy 2." It's all very rushed, but at least we're actually seeing some progression in the relationships and I've wanted more Gamora backstory from the beginning. The other two storylines have some nice moments, but they suffer from not having the breathing space to actually let people talk to each other or build camaraderie. The Vision and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) romance, for instance, is important here, but we only get a single quick scene in the beginning to establish the two are together before the rubble starts to fly. By contrast, Black Widow and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) reuniting gets a quick acknowledgement, but nothing else.

And of course, there's the biggest elephant in the room. "Infinity Wars" is only the first half of this particular "Avengers" story, to be concluded in next year's installment. Therefore, it feels premature to judge the dramatic merits of the film, especially in a comic book movie where it's possible to rewind time and resurrect dead characters with hardly any fuss. There are some big stakes rolled out, but it's difficult to take them at face value, which I'll get into more detail about in my spoiler post, coming in a day or two.

I can't find much to find fault with in "Infinity Wars" as far as the actual filmmaking goes, but after so many years of seeing the Infinity Stones and Thanos elbow their way into other Marvel movies, mostly I'm just relieved to see the end is in sight. Sure, some of the fights are fun, the quips are funny, and the CGI spectacle has rarely been more impressive. However, I have never been more aware that I was watching a comic book movie, with so much devoted solely to convincing me to buy the next issue.

---