REVIEW - Captain America: Brave New World

Brave New World is the fourth Captain America film for the MCU, and the first to see Anthony Mackie step up as the lead after playing second fiddle to Chris Evans for so long. It's also the 35^th movie in the MCU as a whole, and deep into Phase 5 of the increasingly convoluted franchise. This perhaps explains some of the film's messiness and the mixed reviews it's been getting. It's inarguable that Brave New World tries to juggle too much of the franchise's unwieldy backstory, leaving us with a messy script. Yet, for all that, I found Brave New World to be a highly entertaining movie, one of the stronger Marvel movies of recent years, and a great showcase for Mackie's classy new Cap.

Still, it's an odd beast. It's challenging enough for the wider audience that this follows from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, a TV series that was released three years ago, and which many watching in cinemas would not have seen. Yet the Marvel masterminds have decided not to make this the true next step in the Captain America story (not for the first time, in fairness: film three, Captain America: Civil War, was an Avengers film in all but name). No, this is a follow-up to The Incredible Hulk, a middling film that came out over sixteen years ago. This is one way to get round the seemingly intractable distribution dispute between Disney and Universal, which has prevented a Hulk-led sequel from being produced. Add to this the involvement of “Celestial Island,” a vast leftover from the equally middling Eternals, and it's impossible to escape the conclusion that Marvel has made this film just to tie up some loose ends. It's also no secret that this film has experienced significant rewrites and reshoots, even more than Marvel usually subjects its films to.

Still, messy as it is, the film works. This is largely down to some excellent star performances. Mackie was popular as the Falcon, but has his work cut out for him taking over from Evans as Captain America, the figurehead not just of a nation but a global franchise. Fortunately, his quietly commanding, resolute performance makes Wilson's Cap easily the equal of Steve Rogers. Still displaying an infectious sense of humour, this is a more serious, more focused Wilson than we saw in earlier films, shouldering an enormous responsibility. Both Wilson and Mackie himself are representing Black people, and more specifically African Americans, something the film comments on and brings to the forefront without ever becoming preachy or overbearing. Wilson may wear a vibranium-laced suit of armour, but he lacks the physical enhancements that Rogers enjoyed. He suffers in his fights, his refusal to back down against overwhelming opponents a potent parallel to the fact that, as a man of colour, he has to be twice as good and work twice as hard to get to the same place.

Harrison Ford is the second star of the film, putting in a more committed performance than I would have expected. It's a shame for William Hurt, who was reportedly keen to play the next stage of Ross's story, but Ford makes an excellent replacement and brings some solid gravitas to the role. In spite of some critics likening President Ross to Trump, he's really not that like him beyond being old and arrogant – for one thing, he advocates coming together as a country, which is pretty much the opposite of the First Felon. Plus, if he'd been meant as a Trump analogue, they'd have made his Hulk orange, surely. Ross's transformation into the Red Hulk was heavily trailered, so there was no surprise in its revelation; rather, a gradual build-up to its inevitable creation. The Red Hulk is a remarkably realistic creation, given how absurd a creature he is. Making it a transformation against Ross's will is far more potent than the deliberate “upgrade” of the comics, with more of a parallel to the original Hulk.

However, the best performance in the film is from Carl Lumbly, who, as usual, is pure class. Lumbly has form playing superheroes, of course, but as in Falcon he shows he's at his best when playing wounded characters carrying the weight of the world. Isaiah Bradley is a lesser known Marvel character, one who is unlikely to be recognised by those who aren't up on the comics or haven't seen Falcon, which is the bulk of the audience. Bradley's story, though, is so straightforwardly tragic and infuriating that anyone coming in can understand how this man was wronged and why he's so important to the story of Captain America. Less essential is the inclusion of Joaquin Torres, the new Falcon, but Danny Ramirez makes him hugely likeable and it would be a poorer movie without him.

As for the villains, the surprise inclusion (well, surprising when the news broke months ago) of Samuel Sterns works fairly well. The beginnings of Sterns's mutation into the Leader, way back in The Incredible Hulk, left the MCU with one of its biggest unresolved story hooks. Now we finally see the fully enhanced Sterns, he looks just right; recognisably like his comicbook counterpart, but distorted and deformed, how someone haphazardly mutated by radiation and chemicals surely should look. With his towering intellect, the Leader can provide a complex plot in which he pulls the strings of our heroes... unfortunately, there isn't really time for all that, so it remains largely sketched in and frustratingly easily resolved. This is one area to which a TV series is more suited than a film; had this been season two of Falcon, say, Sterns's plan could have been made as Machiavellian as it deserves. It's also hard to deny that, while Tim Blake Nelson gives a decent turn as the Leader, he's thoroughly outdone in the villain stakes by Giancarlo Esposito as Seth Voelker. Esposito has a sinister presence that Nelson simply lacks, and his relegation to an impressive but minor adversary is a misstep.

The elephant in the room is the inclusion of Ruth Bat-Seraph, one of the most controversial Marvel characters. As a member of Mossad and an originally highly Islamophobic, Palestine-vilifying character, her inclusion was going to be contentious even before Israel's nightmarish final push began. Disney/Marvel hedged their bets and rewrote the character into an ex-Black Widow, who while Israeli has no overt ties to that regime. I'm all in favour of reinventing problematic characters from earlier times, but it still rankles, particularly due to the casting of Shira Haas in the role. She gives a strong performance, and there's a certain joy in seeing a tiny, disabled actor playing a deadly warrior, but given Haas's historic support of the IDF her casting is bound to cause anger. There's not an easy way round this, and it's not as if Israeli actors shouldn't be cast in major films, but it adds an unsavoury political controversy to the film.

On a far less weighty note, there was one genuine surprise appearance in the film. Not Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes – it would have been more of a shock if he hadn't turned up – but Liv Tyler reprising her Incredible Hulk role as Betty Ross. After trolling the audience by using a perfunctory voice performance which could just as easily have been a soundalike, Tyler appears in the flesh in the film's closing act. We are assured that it is indeed her, and she was present on set with Ford and Mackie, although given the amount of Botox she's clearly had they could have saved a few quid and used generative AI.

The really baffling thing, though, is the act of making this an in-all-but-name sequel to The Incredible Hulk, and not include the actual Hulk. Who knows, perhaps that would have tipped it over into being a Hulk film and invoked the wrath of Universal. Still, it's one of many odd decisions in a film that baffles as much as it entertains. Nonetheless, it does entertain, and should Mackie lead the Avengers in the MCU's next phase he can certainly shoulder the burden. Let's hope Marvel holds its nerve.

TREK REVIEW: Prodigy 2-3 & 2-4

2.3 - Who Saves the Saviours? 

2.4 - Temporal Mechanics 101

A solid couple of episodes which kick off the main storyline for the season, as Starfleet's youngest accidentally pervert the flow of history. The time travel rules are either very complicated or very shaky on this show. These episodes occur in the same place in two different time periods, with Gwyn on the planet Solum 52 years before Dal and co. get there, stumbling across Chakotay and his first officer, Adreek-hu. 

It seems that all this criss-crossing in time has tied history up in knots. While they work together and try to maintain the timeline like Starfleet officers should, Dal and his pals end up altering history so that Chakotay and Adreek-hu are successful in their escape from Solum abord the Protostar. This means that the ship never ends up on Tars Lamora, so that the kids never find it in the first place and reach Starfleet. Indeed, the Diviner never goes to Tars Lamora to track the ship down, never buys the orphans to use as labour, and never creates Gwyn in the first place. Even though the events are in the future, changing them has altered the past.

All very well, except that the whole point of Gwyn going to Solum in the present was to stop the devastation it faces in the future. So how does Dal and his friends' accidental alteration of future events cause such a drastic change to the timeline? Surely, if Gwyn had been successful and prevented the war on Solum, the distruption would have been even worse? And if Dal's deduction that they were always meant to be in the future to help Chakotay launch the Protostar is correct, how did things end up going so wrong at all?

It's probably best not to think too much on it, just like it's best not to think too much on how Gwyn is slowly fading from existence, "in superposition between two quantum realities," and doesn't just wink out of existence straight away. For that matter, why are the rest of the kids still there, and not wherever they would have grown up if it weren't for the Diviner? Lawd knows.

There's a lot to enjoy here, from Dal's natural leadership to Ma'jel's softening on the team and helping them try to fix things. Jankon ditching his attempt at politeness and embracing his Tellarite crabbiness, while proving again what an amazing engineer he is, is another highlight. The time travel shenanigans work dramatically, even if they don't quite make sense. The bird puns are dreadful, but in the best way.

However, some parts work less well. Having the ritual to prove Gwyn's true Vau'Nakat-ness be just another big fight is visually fun, but a bit of a let down, and something of a Trek cliché. Dr. Erin MacDonald is a real science advisor and is apparently a big deal, so having her play a future version of herself (a descendant?) is fun, but I found her a bit annoying. And, well, Chakotay is back. I realise we didn't know what a dickhead Robert Beltran was when they were recording this, but no one really liked Chakotay first time round anyway. So a series revolving around tracking him down doesn't exactly grip me.

Overall, this is a fun adventure with some high stakes, with Gwyn's very existence hanging in the balance and some great performances from Brett Gray and Ella Purnell. Plus, we have the mystery of who is speaking to the crew from the future (my initial assumption that it was an evolved future version of Zero was way off, though).

Links and references:

• "We're hurtling through a time hole!" After paraphrasing Doctor Who last week, now Dal's throwing around Red Dwarf references. Janon turning his mechanical hand into a spider-like helper might be a nod to Kryten's similar gambit in "Terrorform," but probably not.
• Ma'jel refers to the Bell Riots from DS9 "Past Tense" (set this year, fact fans) and Cochrane's first warp test in Star Trek: First Contact when explaining causal loops.
• MacDonald's Temporal Mechanics lesson refers to the USS Enterprise and Bounty's slingshot time trips, and Q's temporal trickery.
• The USS Voyager-A has temporal shielding, probably in case they run into any Krenim while they're messing about near the Delta Quadrant.
• Adreek-hu is an Aurelian, a species that first appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series. Giving Chakotay an eagle as a first officer is a bit on the nose.

 

Cliché count: "I'm a doctor, not an exorcist!" That's two in four episodes.

Best line: "Over here! Look how distracting I am!"

New fiction - "The Gorgon"

I'm posting on Vocal again, and trying my hand once more at some of their fiction challenges, not least because they force me to actually knuckle down and write something creative.

The latest challenge is "Legends Rewritten," for which I have devised The Gorgon: Medusa's Story, a sci-fi take on a very old myth. Go give it a read, if you fancy it.

REVIEW: Nosferatu

 

Never underestimate the staying power of a good horror story. Over a century since F. W. Murnau’s silent classic Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror was released, another version has rocked the world with its powerful gothic imagery. Of course, even the original Nosferatu wasn’t actually original, being simply Dracula with the names and half the setting changed, to the point where several versions have had the names of the main characters changed back to the ones from the book. It’s a funny thing, copyright: the 1922 Nosferatu was almost destroyed at the orders of Bram Stoker’s widow and now it’s in the worldwide public domain itself. Hence two remakes in just over two years (the 2023 version by David Lee Fisher has not made such a big impact, but it does star Doug Jones, so must be worth a look).

Robert Eggers (The Lighthouse) has had Nosferatu on his ambition list for years, announcing it back in 2015 before production finally started in early 2023. Director’s dream projects that sit in pre-production for years don’t often make for very good films in the end, but Eggers’s ambition and flair are more than up to the task of bringing Nosferatu back to haunting and powerful unlife. Infused with a desolate, strange beauty, Nosferatu is ashen, cold and dour, and yet palpably unsettling. There’s barely any more colour to it than the original, with the odd flashes of bold colour energising the scenes around them: a bouquet of lilacs, the blonde locks of the doomed Anna Harding, and, of course, plenty of blood.

There’s an incredible attention to detail in the production, with pains taken to make the archaic Transylvanian locations look authentic. For external shots, Castle Orlok is in fact Corvin Castle in Transylvania, where the real Vlad Dracula was once imprisoned, with much of the remaining filming taking place in Czechia. Orlok is dressed in heavy furred robes rather than the long, shroud-like coat of the original or eveningwear popularly associated with Dracula. Together with the decision to use a reconstructed form of the ancient Dacian language for Orlok’s own tongue, makes him appear as an actual Transylvanian noble for once. There’s a dedication to using genuine vampire folklore rather than the elements introduced by Dracula and more modern stories; the plague that follows Orlok, while taken from the original Nosferatu, is a common association in Eastern European vampire myths, as is the drinking of blood from the chest or heart, rather than carefully from the neck.

Bill Skarsgård is completely unrecognisable as Count Orlok, the Nosferatu himself. Eschewing the iconic rat-faced look of the original, Skarsgård is made up to appear ancient, haggard and diseased, his pale face dominated by a prodigious moustache. This is more in keeping with the appearance of Dracula at the start of the novel, something infrequently retained by adaptations. However, unlike the original Dracula, Orlok doesn’t rejuvenate as he feeds on others, remaining decrepit, albeit still frighteningly powerful. Skarsgård moves in a disturbingly stiff and deathly way, in keeping with Orlok’s corpselike appearance, but what’s more impressive is his voice. Incorporating operatic training and Mongolian throat music techniques, he reduces his voice to a subhuman growl, something that in most productions would be achieved by electronic or digital modulation.

Eggers initially intended to cast Skarsgård as Thomas Hutter, the Jonathan Harker equivalent of the story. While it’s easy to see that he would have played it well, we would have been robbed of his Orlok as well as Nicholas Hoult’s Hutter. Less than two years since his title role in Renfield, Hoult gets to play a different leading role in a Dracula adaptation with considerably more dramatic clout. His performance is remarkably realistic in an unreal situation; you can sense how desperate and out of his depth he is from the moment he is assigned the job of getting Orlok to sign the legal papers. Meanwhile, the Renfield role is taken by Simon McBurney as Herr Knock, who gives a fabulously over-the-top performance that stays on just the right side of believable.

Willem Dafoe, while restricted to the second half of the film, is almost as intense as Professor von Franz, this version’s equivalent to the great Van Helsing. Having played a vampiric version of original Nosferatu star Max Schrek in 2000’s Shadow of the Vampire, it’s no surprise that Dafoe was considered to play Orlok here. While it would have been interesting, and no doubt entertaining, to see him more-or-less reprise that role, he is so well-cast as the deeply eccentric alchemist/occultist von Franz that the film would be far poorer without him. There are strong performances from Emma Corrin, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Ralph Ineson as well (particularly pleased to see how many Hollywood roles Ineson is getting lately).

Out of a stellar cast, the best performance is by Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter, the central figure of the narrative whose uncanny abilities cause her to call out to Orlok and set the events in motion. While based on Dracula’s Mina Harker, Ellen is central to the story in a much more profound way, and Depp gives an astonishingly intense and deep performance that carries the film. It’s to her credit that, even when we’re immersed in her husband’s experiences in Castle Orlok, we are more than content to be taken back to Wisborg to spend time with the ailing Ellen. Depp shares strong chemistry with Hoult, but it’s her scenes with Skarsgård that are the most compelling.

While Nosferatu almost eclipses its inspiration in foreboding, death-laden atmosphere, it’s not without its flaws. While naturally a slowly-paced film, it loses further momentum as both Hutter and Orlok travel to Wisborg. Much of this is down to the time spent on the cursed journey of the ship that carries the vampire, a sequence that almost invariably slows down and overstretches the more faithful tellings of Dracula. (This reminds me that I must watch The Last Voyage of the Demeter, which overcomes this problem by committing a whole film to the section.) While the sea voyage is also present in the original Nosferatu, its inclusion is just as questionable in both, Dracula sets its second half in England, but why is Orlok travelling from Transylvania to Germany by sea? Hutter has no trouble taken the more sensible course over land.

The film never quite recovers the momentum it needs in the final act, even as events crescendo with plague ravaging Wisborg and Orlok carving a bloody swathe through the main cast. Nonetheless, Nosferatu remains powerfully haunting till its inevitable, dark and moving end. Both tangibly sexual and profoundly distressing, carefully beautiful yet achingly dark, Ellen’s final encounter with Orlok reflects the atmosphere and emotions of the film as a whole. Nosferatu is a quite unforgettable experience.