So, it's set in World War II, which is a bit of a change from the normal superhero yarn, and the miniature Chris Evans looks funny, but really, doesn't this just look exactly the same as every other damn origin story we've seen over the last 10 years? I'm now getting totally bored of all these identikit narratives.
Sure, they each have their own variations, such as this one's period setting, but in terms of story beats and framework they are all exactly the same movie. How dull is that? There's always the first act showing the origin, the second as they get used to their new abilities, and the third where some villain arises and our new man in tights has to save to day.
Even Iron Man - held up as one of the best of the bunch - is achingly formulaic, and I actually quite like that one (it's grown on me a bit on home viewings, and I of course love Robert Downey Jr.). They all share the same flaws - i.e. the start is a bit slow as you're just waiting for the title character to show up, and the villain is poor because there's not enough time devoted to his evil schemes. Really, think back: name a superhero origin movie where the villain has been any good: Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, even Superman: The Movie had dull antagonists. (The original 1989 Batman wasn't an origin movie and hugely benefited from that in the villain stakes.)
Not all of those movies listed above are poor, by any means. I have a soft spot for Ang Lee's Hulk - it tries to do something different and mostly works - and Batman Begins is brilliant, while Superman is heavily flawed but still iconic. Of those, only Batman's origin section is truly compelling, however; the other films are only interesting for different reasons.
The fact is, by their very nature, origin films violate that old storytelling maxim, "start as far into the plot as you can". Cutting to the chase has led to many a great film, e.g. Star Wars, while doing the opposite can have dire consequences (Star Wars Episode I). These films all start right at the beginning, meaning that a lot of exposition that could be delivered much more efficiently (just see the opening of Avatar, say, for an example delivering essential character information quickly) is slowly, predictably dumped into your lap.
What's more, origin stories are never set up to be standalone films, and therefore are rarely completely satisfying on their own terms. They always just a great big tease for the planned sequel, which may or may not ultimately materialise (based on box office takings). It's symptomatic of the curse of blockbuster filmmaking nowadays - the studios are always seeking the next big franchise, and so every story has to be open-ended. The rare exceptions like Inception - which doesn't ask for a sequel and shouldn't get one - are the only films that will have long term shelf lives.
Never has this obvious setting-up-for-a-sequel been more transparent than with Captain America - full title Captain America: The First Avenger - as its main task is purely to introduce the character for superhero team-up The Avengers, due next year. The same is true of Thor. Can these films really hope to have their own identity, when their Marvel overlords are so intent to knit together a big cinematic mythos that apes the comics' labyrinthine interconnections? At least they've been confident enough to make interesting directorial choices - Joe Johnston directs Cap, Kenneth Branagh Thor. (Meanwhile, Martin Campbell of GoldenEye and Casino Royale fame helms DC Comics' competing Green Lantern, which from its trailer looks like a bizarre sci-fi take.)
Yes, I'll probably still watch all these movies, and hopefully I'll like at least some of them. Mainly I hope they manage stand out from the overpopulated superhero origin crowd.
Captain America is out 22 July in the US, 29 July in the UK; Thor 6 May/27 April in UK (yes, earlier!); and Green Lantern 17 June on both sides of the pond.
No comments:
Post a Comment