rantingreviews

[rantingreviews]

The Mysterious Benedict Society: Page To Screen Review

Let’s Discuss ... 

Even though I’m now in my 20s, I was overjoyed to hear that The Mysterious Benedict Society was finally being made into a TV series, after reading the books over a decade ago. I did, however, have some reservations when I saw it would be on Disney+ and will go on to discuss what I found to be strengths and weaknesses of this. To address any quick questions: is it a children’s series? Yes. But is it a very aesthetically pleasing children’s series that you’ll be instantly engrossed in? Yes. For this reason alone, I implore everyone to give it a watch (even if I am a little biased).

Two Things About The Series I Adored:

The casting

Without a doubt in my mind, the actors in this adaptation were cast to perfection. To pick out a few:

Mr Benedict, played by Tony Hale, was everything I had imagined and more. Each line he delivered seemed so genuine, making me want someone to believe in me as much as Mr Benedict believed in the children. He also had the task of differentiating between Mr Benedict and his evil twin, Mr Curtain, which I think was done well (their mannerisms and speech patterns very different), and I didn’t think of them as the same person once.

Ryan Hurst, to me, is Milligan in the same way that Alan Rickman was Snape. Upon initial reading they may not have been exactly what I had in mind, but each embodied their respective roles perfectly. Milligan was one of my favourite book characters because of the safety he always seemed to assure no matter how scary things got. Hurst’s portrayal provided this stability, whilst his line delivery made the character far more comedic than I remember (or perhaps was originally intended).

The actors who portray the children were also incredible, but I have to mention Mystic Inscho, who played Reynie. His innocence was so beautiful that Reynie’s actions always came across as endearing rather than annoying or unrealistic. Telling Ms Perumal he’s wearing mismatched socks because he got dressed in the dark so as not to disturb anyone else may have come across sickly-sweet if delivered by anyone else, but Inscho pulled it off and melted your heart in the process. As he walks away to enter the exam, you feel like you’re in Ms Perumal’s shoes, wishing you could hold his hand and assure him it’ll be okay.

The aesthetic

I’ve already commended the aesthetics and I plan to do so again. When presenting a show filled with quirky characters I think it’s very fitting to have a quirky world around them. The colours were so vibrant and the 60s/70s fashion and cars contrast with the highly technological and sterile institute. One of my favourite scenes takes place in the first episode, when the screen is split in four as we get to see each child working out the task of getting across the room. It was great to have visual representation of how each child’s mind worked, and their potential strengths later on.

Two Things I Wish They’d Handled Better (BOOK SPOLERS AHEAD):

Milligan’s backstory

As mentioned above, Milligan was one of my favourite characters and his backstory has stuck with me through everything I’ve read since. This may seem picky but as others who’ve read the series will know, Milligan is not his real name. In fact, we don’t find out what his real name is, but what we do know is why he goes by Milligan. Despite losing his memories, he had a vague recollection of Kate asking to go to the “mill again”, where he used to take her swimming in the pond. To this day I think that may be one of the most beautiful reveals I’ve ever read; I didn’t see it coming and yet it made perfect sense. The Disney+ series set the exposition up perfectly in episode 1 with Kate’s flashback scene, and yet they never went through with executing the reveal. I think Ryan Hurst would’ve performed that moment of realisation so poignantly that I feel a bit cheated it was left out.  

The Ten Men

If I’m being honest, this was the main let down of the series. Some of the scariest hench men I had read in children’s literature were reduced to practically nothing in this series, and I can only assume it’s because they weren’t “Disney” enough. In the series they are replaced by incompetent and somewhat irrelevant lackeys in grey. I loved the fact that the Ten Men gave the books a slightly darker edge than other fiction I was reading at the time; they were so predatory and it gave the story actual stakes. Whilst I appreciate the Disney+ series is aimed at a relatively young audience, at no point was I ever worried about the children’s safety in the slightest, no matter how concerned Mr Benedict seemed to be. I was most worried for the children when they were taking the exam in the first episode, not when they were supposedly risking their lives in the finale, which shouldn’t be the case.

Overall, I think this is a very good book adaptation. There are definitely some details that I think the author does better, but this is to be expected. It has A Series of Unfortunate Events feel about it, except instead of constantly being frustrated by the lack of adult maturity or supervision, there are grown-ups who genuinely care (without hindering the children’s adventures or independence), which allows for a heart-warming tale. If The Mysterious Benedict Society is renewed for a second series (and fingers-crossed it will be!) I hope Disney+ takes the chance to make it a little darker and consider properly including the Ten Men. If done right, it can definitely still be family-friendly; many Disney movies have far scarier villains than we’ve seen in this series so far. If it wasn’t for the impeccable cast I may be more stubborn, however, due to their fantastic performances I know I will continue watching regardless.  

[rantingreviews]

Black Widow Review: Why Disney+ Needs to Renew Agent Carter

DANGER – SPOLERS AHEAD ...

Whilst I fully agree it shouldn’t have taken as long as it did for Black Widow to get her standalone film, I can’t honestly say I was particularly excited for it. I felt that Natasha had already reached her ultimate redemption arc in Avengers: Endgame and knew this wasn’t going to be a laugh a minute due to Black Widow’s backstory. This being said, there was definitely more humour in it than I initially expected which provided much needed relief, though it came from some very unexpected places that caused me internal conflict. The physical reveal of the Red Room also left me wanting to know more details about its past and, in turn, a longing for the cancelled series Agent Carter.

For me, this film was more of a springboard for new characters than it was a standalone for Black Widow. Whilst it definitely gives us more of Natasha’s harrowing backstory, I don’t feel that her character is developed any more than we’ve already seen her grow in the previous films she’s featured in. This story definitely shone a light on Natasha’s long-lost sister, Yelena, who was strong and witty and … who basically got all the good lines I’d expect the main character to have. True, Yelena gets to focus on revenge whilst Natasha is given more of a redemption arc as she tries to make amends for her past, but again we already know Black Widow is willing to sacrifice herself to do the right thing as a result of guilt, as we’ve seen this time and time again in other films. Perhaps this is not Black Widow’s fault though, but that because she was a recurring main character for so long without a standalone that we’ve already explored her redemption to its limits, with nothing being able to top her sacrifice in Avengers: Endgame. Yelena was played exceptionally well and will clearly go on to play a major part in the new Hawkeye series (make sure to watch the end credit scene if you haven’t!)

There was definitely more humour as the film went on than I originally expected, predominantly through the character of Alexei (Black Widow’s substitute father during an undercover mission as a child in the 90s). I absolutely loved this character, however, what I didn’t love was the set up. As mentioned, he acted as Natasha and Yelena’s father for three years before brutally giving them back to Dreykov and the Red Room to continue/start their abusive training. When they break him out of prison, they seem annoyed at him for his actions (and lack of understanding about what they endured), but are never particularly angry with him. The main conflict comes when Yelena is upset because to her they were a real family and she doesn’t like the characters to speak as though they weren’t. We quickly see them bonding once again along with Melina, their substitute mother, Black Widow even going on to say she has ‘two families’ at the end of the film. Whilst I loved Alexei’s comedic nature, I don’t love that the film’s humour had to come at the expense of real emotion. I find it impossibly unlikely that two women like Natasha and Yelena would welcome the man that was partially responsible for drugging and trafficking them as young girls just because of his puppy-like nature. This caused much internal conflict for me as I was laughing out loud at the man who had done something completely unforgivable at the start of the film. Truthfully, I would’ve much preferred if he was a crazy guard who had shown them kindness or a fellow ex-experiment who they teamed up with rather than the man we saw betray them in the worst way possible at the beginning of the film.

A potentially controversial opinion is that I’m not sure the actual storyline was necessary. Up until now I hadn’t been asking myself what Black Widow had been doing after Captain America: Civil War as I thought the physical events (even if not the mental repercussions) had been resolved pretty quickly as we see Captain America breaking the other Avengers out of their Prison in the end credit scene of Civil War. Because of this, the ending of Black Widow feels slightly shoe horned in; when Natasha leaves with her shiny blonde hair saying that she’s off to break some Avengers out of prison, are we supposed to believe that she was there in the background helping Cap even though that clearly wasn’t the original intention in Civil War? However, Black Widow does reveal Natasha and Clint’s mission to us as she defected to S.H.I.E.L.D and, more importantly, the outcome of the Red Room. However, despite the new information we learn about the Red Room, there are still many questions I have about its past that remain unanswered, which leads me on to Agent Carter.  

Agent Carter, like many series pre-Disney+, didn’t receive the love it deserved and was ultimately (and unjustly) cancelled after 2 seasons, leaving many mysteries unsolved. I have no doubt that if it was released today on the streaming platform its ratings would increase exponentially. I also think, given the context of Black Widow, that there has never been a better time to renew it. If you don’t know, Agent Carter follows the story of Peggy Carter – a badass women who is so much more than just Captain America’s love interest and a literal founder of S.H.I.E.L.D – set in the 1940s. Besides some brilliantly played characters including Howard Stark (yes, a young Iron Man’s dad) and Edwin Jarvis (yes, the real-life Jarvis), Peggy also has an adversary in the form of Soviet assassin, Dottie Underwood, who (as you’ve probably guessed), was trained in the Red Room Academy. In one episode, Peggy and her associates infiltrate the Red Room and we get a glimpse of what it’s like in the 1940s. But what happened between then and Black Widow’s time? Who was in charge before Dreykov took over? What was Dottie’s overall purpose? Agent Carter has the potential to fill in so much of the Red Room’s history before it became a floating prison in the sky, as well as the MCU’s history overall. Sure, if it was renewed then a few storylines may have to be reconsidered (for those who’ve seen Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D you’ll know that a bit of time travel takes place …) but I think Agent Carter has so much potential to explain the ever-increasing past and backstories of characters who are becoming more prominent in the next phase.

To conclude, I think this film is a nice addition to the timeline, even if not essential viewing. It definitely provides the set-up for Hawkeye and, as I’ve explained in detail, provides reason for the previous series Agent Carter, to be brought back. I think both the serious and comedic elements of this film are well acted but, for the reasons given, I’m not convinced they work well alongside each other within the context of child trafficking.

[rantingreviews]

Loki and the Time-Keepers: Are Marvel Deaths Meaningless?

Yes, even that one ...  

I’ve really enjoyed the initial three episodes we’ve seen of Loki so far, which massively feed discussions about the multiverse, alternate timelines and, of course, variants. With this being said, it raises many questions such as “why are some people freely allowed to travel between timelines whilst others are inconsistently reprimanded by the TVA?” Furthermore, with the ever-growing possibility of another variation of a character existing within a different timeline (such as Loki), a character’s death is never truly their ending. Does this then make the overall impact of their death scenes meaningless? And is it just a way for Marvel to keep their foot in the door should any high-profile actors want to make a cameo in a future phase? For me, this causes particular issues with Avengers: Endgame - not with the Avengers themselves as you may expect - but with one character in particular: Gamora. Let me explain ... 

“With the ever-growing possibility of another variation of a character existing within a different timeline, a character’s death is never truly their ending”

Truthfully, I was a little late to watching Endgame originally, so I can’t be sure what the average fan did or didn’t know about the multiverse at the point of release. What I do know is the storyline that was presented and the issues I think it causes with the developments we’ve seen in Loki so far. WARNING: SPOLIERS AHEAD! Marvel made some very gutsy moves in Avengers: Infinity War, moves that included Thanos sacrificing (killing) his daughter, Gamora, to obtain the Soul Stone. Yes, by the end of the film he also eradicated half of all life, but we knew Endgame would work to resolve that. Gamora’s death was different though as she wasn’t guaranteed to be brought back by ‘undoing’ the Snap, and I loved that. 

Flashforward to Endgame and we have the post-Blip Avengers discussing time travel. I naturally find myself worrying when franchises suddenly decide to use time travel as their deus ex machina [insert reference to the tragedy of X-Men: Days of Future Past here]. Don’t get me wrong, the scenes when the Avengers go back in time were some of my favourites, filled with comedy as well as more poignant moments, but it also opened up a can of worms. We know this timeline is fixed as it’s shown in multiple ways. For example, in Endgame the Thanos we know (or ‘present’ Thanos, if you will) is dead, and it’s ‘past’ Thanos who the Avengers are fighting. By this point I’d say it’s agreed that if taking people from their past had any impact on this timeline, then fighting and destroying ‘past’ Thanos in his future before he’d had chance to find all Infinity Stones would result in The Snap / Blip never having happened in the first place. In much the same way, bringing ‘past’ Gamora to her future (and so never having been killed by Thanos), doesn’t affect our timeline. This is where my questions arise.

Question 1: If characters can be brought from their past to their future with no impact on this timeline, why doesn’t it happen more often? Following Tony Stark’s tragic death scene, I fully expected him to be stood at the back of his own funeral, amused, flattered and feeling pretty smug about the whole thing. I reasoned they’d go back and get a version of ‘past’ Tony as, after all, if this timeline is fixed then he can both fight Thanos in our present and still be taken out of the timeline in his past before ever fighting Thanos, to no disruption. Yes, I know the Pym Particles are highly unstable and this is all very difficult to do, but you can’t expect me to believe that no one is ever going to try to figure out a better way of time travelling again now that we know it’s possible? Or were we supposed to just go with it for this one film and never discuss its possibilities again?

“I fully expected him to be stood at the back of his own funeral, amused, flattered and feeling pretty smug about the whole thing”

I’ve come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly, in the same vein as the explanation we were given by the Ancient One, they have a responsibility to the alternate branch of the timeline that ‘past’ Tony is living in. By bringing ‘past’ Tony to our present / his future, they could be leaving his daughter fatherless and result in an alternate timeline where Thanos wins. Although, if Doctor Strange is a reliable source, then that sounds like pretty much every other timeline anyway. 

Alternatively, with the new information Loki has given us, I guess we’re supposed to believe that those who altered the timeline didn’t really diverge from their path at all. As Ravonna Renslayer says in episode 1 of Loki when referring to the Avengers: “What they did was supposed to happen. You escaping was not.” By this logic, ‘past’ Thanos and ‘past’ Gamora were supposed to be brought forward (meaning the TVA stopping Loki has nothing to do with the fact he’s considered dangerous, otherwise Thanos would’ve been stopped sooner), but ‘past’ Tony could never have existed in this timeline because the Time-Keepers hadn’t decreed it so, meaning the TVA would view him as a variant and have him removed. I have to admit, I find this explanation flimsy at best. It seems as though the Time-Keepers are conveniently invested in Gamora’s love life, giving her free reign in case Marvel decide to make Guardians of the Galaxy 3, but other characters who are played by actors who decide not to renew their contracts don’t receive this preferential treatment. Of course it makes sense from a production point of view, but in regards to the MCU it’s all very “because I said so.” I’m hoping Loki will bring us more insight into the Time-Keepers in the coming episodes - the extent of their powers and if they even exist at all - but I question if they’ll be a satisfactory answer as to why some characters can leap across timelines whilst others are punished for it.

“I question if they’ll be a satisfactory answer as to why some characters can leap across timelines whilst others are punished for it”

Question 2: If a version of Gamora exists within this timeline, why was Black Widow’s death considered so final? I understand other characters mourning the death of a loved one as, just because time travel and alternate versions of the person could exist, it doesn’t mean we’re going to see them in this timeline again. However, following Black Widow’s death everyone came to the conclusion that it couldn’t be reversed under any circumstances because, by sacrificing herself for the Soul Stone, Natasha had made an “everlasting exchange.” But … Gamora literally died in the same way and yet there was physical proof of a ‘past’ version of her in their present. Or is this another example of Gamora defying all the rules that the other characters seem to have mysteriously imposed upon them. “Everlasting exchange” means final death for Natasha but only a half movie absence for Gamora.

“Just because time travel and alternate versions of the person could exist, it doesn’t mean we’re going to see them in this timeline again”

To conclude, I don’t think character deaths going forward are meaningless in terms of the plot. Other characters can still believably grieve following the (often violent) death of a loved one, and typically there’s a larger sacrifice being made to further the overall story. However, knowing there are potentially hundreds of variants of our favourite characters that could appear at any time across the MCU may take away from the impact of a character’s death scene and even cause us to question why some deaths are more final than others. It also calls into question why the Time-Keepers appear to give some characters preferential treatment when it suits the Marvel writers. At the moment I think the main problem is that there doesn’t seem to be consistency in what is and isn’t possible, but I hope Loki can provide us with more answers in the coming weeks. 

[rantingreviews]

Cruella is the Harley Quinn we Deserved

Watch out, spoilers ahead ... 

When I first saw Birds of Prey: The Fantabulous Emancipation of Harley Quinn in January 2020, I was left feeling … deflated. Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn was clearly the shining star in Suicide Squad among a relatively bleak sky, so to give her her own female empowered movie was the logical next step.

From the beginning, the trailers of these two femme fatales were compared - in fairness it’s hard not to, both Cruella and Harley with their whitened faces, smudged eyeliner, bold fashion choices and penchant for drinking and violence. Instantly questions like “Is Disney ripping off Harley Quinn”, “Is Disney cashing in off the back of DC’s success” and “Do we really need another live action origin story” were asked (and you may well answer “yes”, “yes” and “no” with confidence). Even as the screening of Cruella began, I could see instant similarities, both beginning with monologues venturing back to their births/childhoods and a voice over element that continued throughout.

“They say, if you wanna tell a story right, you gotta start at the beginning. Too far? Fine. This is me, Harleen Quinzel.” – Harley Quinn

“Oh, no. We’re starting here? Okay. From the very beginning I’ve always made a statement.” – Cruella

Normally I prefer originals to remakes, so why in this case did I prefer Cruella to Birds of Prey, even though Disney had taken clear inspiration? The problem wasn’t the film itself or Margot Robbie’s portrayal of Harley Quinn – I, as many do, actually think she does a fantastic job. The problem is inherently with the character itself. The emancipation that the titles speaks of is Harley Quinn learning to become her own person without The Joker who, despite this supposed emancipation, is regularly brought up throughout the film. In short, Dr Harleen Quinzel would never have become Harley Quinn without him so, in a film about female empowerment, you can’t get away from the fact that Harley Quinn only is who she is because of a man. With DC’s reluctance to add in Poison Ivy, it seems that Harley Quinn may never escape The Joker as her primary love interest and motivation.

Cruella, on the other hand, doesn’t have this problem. Whilst there are male supporting characters – thieving friends, a Bowie-esque fashionista, the ever-reliable Mark Strong – there is no boyfriend or present father figure. In fact, a prediction of mine was actually proven wrong. I assumed, since we didn’t know who or where Cruella’s father was at her birth, that he would turn out to be the evil Baroness’ son and that Cruella was her secret granddaughter. This may have been doing Emma Thompson a disservice as the big secret turned out that – SPOILER ALERT – the Baroness was actually Cruella’s real mum all along. The absence of Cruella’s father actually wasn’t important at all. He was simply a loving baron who died of a broken heart and had no real relevance to the plot. All of Cruella’s actions are due to her rebellious nature (potentially some of the psychotic tendencies being hereditary from her birth mother), and her need to avenge her adoptive mother’s death.

“It was the closure I needed. A fresh start. A chance to be my own woman.” – Harley Quinn

“I am woman. Hear me roar.” – Cruella

It was also refreshing to have a strong female villain in Cruella in the form of the Baroness, played impeccably by Emma Thompson. The rich white misogynistic male villain, played by Ewan McGregor, didn’t particularly do it for me in Birds of Prey. I can understand that the aim was to have the female characters – hero and anti-hero alike – stop fighting each other and instead team up to fight the bad man, but he was just a little too stereotypical for me. Whilst I don’t think women fighting other women and constantly trying to outdo each other should become the next theme in every Disney movie moving forward, I thought Cruella did it well and it was a nice change of pace.

Despite this, one thing I think Cruella could have improved upon was its female alliances. Whilst I appreciate a female anti-hero and female villain, I also appreciate strong female characters working together, which wasn’t overtly present. I thought the relationship between Cruella and her school friend Anita (who she initially defended in the playground), was going to be far better developed. I had hoped we’d see them explicitly helping each other’s careers grow, rather than it being implied Cruella may give Anita tip offs for her newspaper every now and then. It was likely Anita would be at these events anyway and looks just as shocked as everyone else at Cruella’s extravagant arrivals. Credit where credit’s due, I thought Birds of Prey made a fair attempt at this, (although the female characters don’t actually team up until the end of the film).

In conclusion, both are good films and both characters are portrayed by really good actors, however, in my opinion Cruella successfully accomplished what Birds of Prey set out to do but was unfortunately unable to deliver.