What was the last film you watched?

[Spells & Karma]

Inspired by @Mel O'Drama's Watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe from the beginning thread, I thought I would finally watch Ant-Man.

Oh great. I'm happy the Marvel love is continuing.

it's more than a usual superhero film, this one has a lot of comedy, elements of a money heist film and a shrinking man film and I loved it.

Yes. I loved this film's sense of fun. It's lighter in tone at times than many other films of its type and it felt quite retro in that regard. There was a bit of Land Of The Giants here and there. And the heist was fun in a different kind of way. I loved the sequence where Scott used his ingenuity to get a fingerprint to the safe using household objects.

Unlike many Marvel films, it doesn't reference the other films significantly so it's easy to watch without thinking you've missed plot points which occurred in other films.

This is one of just a handful of MCU films I watched in isolation before watching most of the others and it certainly felt very accessible, which is a plus. Simplicity is always a good thing.


I'm glad you enjoyed it, Angela.

 

[Spells & Karma]

X2 (2002)

(Also known as X2: X-Men United or, here in the UK, plain old X-Men 2).

For me, this is a fine middle instalment of a superhero trilogy. It builds on the themes introduced in the first, broadens the scope and leaves just enough unresolved to create anticipation for a second sequel.

Despite having many of the same characters, settings and ideas, X2 feels different from the first X-Men film. It's slicker, more surefooted and with a sense of scale that probably reflects the significantly larger budget (a quick search suggests the budget was two-thirds greater, which I can believe). It feels that this was the film Bryan Singer was aiming to make when shooting the first one. The payoff is that it arguably feels a little less intimate, though not as much as one would expect given the more expansive nature of the film. The same can be said of John Ottman's score, which enhances the grandeur and feels a little more nuanced than Michael Kamen's while at the same time feeling a tad more conventional than the original.

Character choices for this second film work well for me - there's no misstep à la Toad - and the shades of grey between good and bad are explored wonderfully by the X-Men and Brotherhood working somewhat uncomfortably together, bound by a common cause. As in the first film, the human antagonist is arguably the biggest villain (Senator Kelly there; Stryker here), and even there his motivation is explored creating a degree of empathy. Brian Cox brings the requisite gravitas to the trinity of activists driven by different motives (Xavier/Magneto/Stryker). There's also Pyro's journey, with his loyalties shifting from Xavier to Magneto. Again, this is shown to be a response to the bigotry he's experienced and so gives food for thought. Aside from Stryker, the biggest new introduction is Nightcrawler. It's great to see him and Alan Cumming (last seen in O'Dramavision exploring Scotland with Miriam Margolyes). Lady Deathstryke also makes a great impression, an even more impressive feat given she doesn't say a word.

Character cameos and tertiary players give some nice little Easter eggs for those who know the characters. Kitty Pryde's here again, though played by a different, younger actress than in the first. Hank McCoy appeared on a TV screen which was a really nice touch. Siryn got to wail (it's a curious choice to introduce her before Banshee, but far from the biggest continuity issue I have with this series). Jubilee and Artie are also present and correct. And I think Karma might have been one of the kids shown being held prisoner. Xi'an's name was certainly shown on a computer screen along with a host of other familiar characters.

Colossus has a fairly low-key introduction this time round. I'd have thought him a shoo-in for the main team due to his powers and distinct steel look. But I suppose there's only so much screen-time available and less is more when it comes to new characters as it can distract from the story.

Jean's arc thrilled me the first time I watched this film and it still feels exciting. Knowing the big picture undermines its power a little, since I don't feel the third film was able to deliver what's promised here (I've never been a fan of the third film for many reasons, which I'll come to soon enough). But taking this independently, it certainly feels as though it's going in the right direction and back in the day it left me salivating at the thought of a third film.

Watching this time round, I had a problem with the way things were left with Jason 143. Even with such chaos going on, I just couldn't buy that Charles would leave a fellow mutant and former student to that fate without even an utterance of protest.

The choice to base the plot loosely on the God Loves, Man Kills graphic novel makes complete sense, given the strong themes and darker nature. I don't feel the film went quite as far in making its point, but then - even twenty or so years on from GLMK - I'm not sure superhero film lovers were quite ready for schoolchildren being murdered by lynch mobs, and I suspect there'd have been an outcry had film Stryker's attempted genocide been driven by religious evangelism.

I also applaud the continued focus on the Mutant Registration Act as it drove many stories during my comics-reading in the Eighties. It feels like a very logical response to super-powered beings (similar to the Sokovia Accords in the Avengers films, which were explored in greater depth and arguably to greater effect. But then X-Men did it first and in the comics, the seed for the whole Civil War storyline can be traced back to the X-Men's Mutant Registration Act).​

 

[Angela Chilling]

After Yang (2022)

The film is set in the future but it's not clear how far in the future. A couple have an adopted East Asian daughter so they bought and East Asian looking and behaving android called Yang to be her older brother and teach her about her Asian heritage and culture. The android suddenly stops working and the films then charts how the dad (Colin Farrell) tries to get the android fix and in doing so uncovers some of Yang's memory.

It's an unusual film that is held together and made watchable by the 3 main actors. It explores the idea that we don't appreciate what we have until we lose it. I don't think it's the kind of film that will have universal appeal but I quite liked it.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

X2 (2002)

(Also known as X2: X-Men United or, here in the UK, plain old X-Men 2).

For me, this is a fine middle instalment of a superhero trilogy. It builds on the themes introduced in the first, broadens the scope and leaves just enough unresolved to create anticipation for a second sequel.

Despite having many of the same characters, settings and ideas, X2 feels different from the first X-Men film. It's slicker, more surefooted and with a sense of scale that probably reflects the significantly larger budget (a quick search suggests the budget was two-thirds greater, which I can believe). It feels that this was the film Bryan Singer was aiming to make when shooting the first one. The payoff is that it arguably feels a little less intimate, though not as much as one would expect given the more expansive nature of the film. The same can be said of John Ottman's score, which enhances the grandeur and feels a little more nuanced than Michael Kamen's while at the same time feeling a tad more conventional than the original.

Character choices for this second film work well for me - there's no misstep à la Toad - and the shades of grey between good and bad are explored wonderfully by the X-Men and Brotherhood working somewhat uncomfortably together, bound by a common cause. As in the first film, the human antagonist is arguably the biggest villain (Senator Kelly there; Stryker here), and even there his motivation is explored creating a degree of empathy. Brian Cox brings the requisite gravitas to the trinity of activists driven by different motives (Xavier/Magneto/Stryker). There's also Pyro's journey, with his loyalties shifting from Xavier to Magneto. Again, this is shown to be a response to the bigotry he's experienced and so gives food for thought. Aside from Stryker, the biggest new introduction is Nightcrawler. It's great to see him and Alan Cumming (last seen in O'Dramavision exploring Scotland with Miriam Margolyes). Lady Deathstryke also makes a great impression, an even more impressive feat given she doesn't say a word.

Character cameos and tertiary players give some nice little Easter eggs for those who know the characters. Kitty Pryde's here again, though played by a different, younger actress than in the first. Hank McCoy appeared on a TV screen which was a really nice touch. Siryn got to wail (it's a curious choice to introduce her before Banshee, but far from the biggest continuity issue I have with this series). Jubilee and Artie are also present and correct. And I think Karma might have been one of the kids shown being held prisoner. Xi'an's name was certainly shown on a computer screen along with a host of other familiar characters.

Colossus has a fairly low-key introduction this time round. I'd have thought him a shoo-in for the main team due to his powers and distinct steel look. But I suppose there's only so much screen-time available and less is more when it comes to new characters as it can distract from the story.

Jean's arc thrilled me the first time I watched this film and it still feels exciting. Knowing the big picture undermines its power a little, since I don't feel the third film was able to deliver what's promised here (I've never been a fan of the third film for many reasons, which I'll come to soon enough). But taking this independently, it certainly feels as though it's going in the right direction and back in the day it left me salivating at the thought of a third film.

Watching this time round, I had a problem with the way things were left with Jason 143. Even with such chaos going on, I just couldn't buy that Charles would leave a fellow mutant and former student to that fate without even an utterance of protest.

The choice to base the plot loosely on the God Loves, Man Kills graphic novel makes complete sense, given the strong themes and darker nature. I don't feel the film went quite as far in making its point, but then - even twenty or so years on from GLMK - I'm not sure superhero film lovers were quite ready for schoolchildren being murdered by lynch mobs, and I suspect there'd have been an outcry had film Stryker's attempted genocide been driven by religious evangelism.

I also applaud the continued focus on the Mutant Registration Act as it drove many stories during my comics-reading in the Eighties. It feels like a very logical response to super-powered beings (similar to the Sokovia Accords in the Avengers films, which were explored in greater depth and arguably to greater effect. But then X-Men did it first and in the comics, the seed for the whole Civil War storyline can be traced back to the X-Men's Mutant Registration Act).​

I enjoyed the original Xmen trilogy!

Most people would condider #2 as the best, I am a little more partial to 3,
mainly because of Sir Ian Mckellen's expanded role, and how he carries the movie, in my opinion,
with his many layers and nuances, his grief at losing Charles.=,
his passionate advocacy of his people)
Magneto was arguably the greatest fictional villain/adversary ever in a superhero movie
(could be a great debate - Magneto/Joker/Doc Octupus/Zod just to name a few
I was moved by Hugh Jackman/Wolverine understated speech about how they were fighting for
Charles' legacy

 

[Spells & Karma]

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

I remember queueing to see this in the cinema on opening weekend, looking at the giant cutouts in the lobby full of anticipation and excitement. I left feeling disappointed and a little deflated.

I did find lots to enjoy in the film. As @Jock Ewing Fan said there was an expanded role for Ian McKellen, which is always a good thing. Kitty Pryde is probably my favourite X-Man, so I was thrilled to see her play a more substantial part, and I thought Ellen Page (as was) was a great fit in the role. It was nice to see two more original X-Men - Beast and Angel on screen (with Hank appropriately recast with Frasier for this instalment). There were cameos galore, and nods to familiar tropes and scenarios from the comics: the Danger Room (complete with Sentinels); the Fastball Special; Hank's "Oh my stars and garters" exclamation.

Initially, my disappointment stemmed from the fact that this wasn't in any way a faithful representation of The Phoenix Saga. I hadn't expected it to be a line-for-line translation, but neither had I expected it to stray quite so far from the mother ship.

But there were other concerns. This film's biggest enemy was Superman. James Marsden may have managed to leave Metropolis long enough to shoot some Cyclops scenes, but he's the least of the losses anyway. The timing meant that the director, composer and writers of the previous instalment were all tied up with Superman Returns. And it really does show in the film. When the DVD came out, I remember watching the audio commentary and finding Brett Ratner just too much. Every scene was like the Best. Thing. Ever. I felt the tone was constantly self-congratulatory which was incredibly off-putting to me. I'm not sure how accurate an assessment that was. I've just looked back at a couple of interviews of Brett's regarding the film and found him fine, so perhaps there were crossed wires, or perhaps I was still bitter about the film having a different auteur.

It's many years since I last watched this film - probably around a decade and perhaps longer. My lingering memory is the feeling that it lacked the subtlety of the first two films. I found it noisy, busy and a bit more cartoony, with Charles's death-by-CGI a low point for me.



The good news is that this time round - going in with extremely low expectations - the film is better than I remember. In fact the first 45 minutes or so really impressed me. The de-ageing technology used for Charles and Eric wowed me when I first watched. I thought it might have dated badly but it still looks very nice indeed.

Neither was it as noisy as I feared, though the final battle remains the least satisfying of the three films for me as there's just too much going on. And John Powell's score was better than I remembered. I have it on CD and so might have to revisit it soon.

There were some lovely moments. Ororo's eulogy at Charles's funeral was a standout for me this time round. It was good to see her given this kind of material as Storm seems to have ended up being overshadowed by other characters in all three films and both Halle and Ororo deserve better (though perhaps there's something to be said for "less is more" since she's remained consistently watchable for me).

Joss Whedon's X-Men run was way after I'd stopped reading regularly (and to say I didn't care for Whedon's MCU films is an understatement) but the plot about the mutant cure evidently came from that run and I have to say it's perfect for this world. Clearly it builds on the allegory for civil rights that pervades the fabric of the X-Men as a concept.




continued...​

 

[Spells & Karma]

X-Men: The Last Stand

continued



There was more of a heart to the film than I remembered. The first X-Men film had its roots in the Nazis persecution of minority groups (referenced to great effect in The Last Stand with Eric's speech about authorities waiting until its dark to come and round up the mutants). X2 had Iceman "coming out" to his parents, and Nightcrawler asking why Mystique didn't hide who she was to fit in (because she could "pass") and Mystique responding that "we shouldn't have to". The mutant cure feels very much an allegory for conversion therapy. It's a highly divisive topic which makes it great for adding layers to the themes already established. I'm not sure how to feel about Rogue ultimately being shown to benefit from the treatment, but it seems fair that there should be cases for both arguments and this was balanced out by Angel choosing to keep his wings and fly.

Angel had quite an important role in the opening scenes However he had little to say or do as the film progressed and there was no real character development. A victim, I suspect of this film simply having too much going on.

His father, Warren Worthington II, was even more disappointing. At the start of the film he was set up as a powerful force, but it was pretty much a damp squib. This film needed a strong human antagonist to give it the same weight as the first two films and Warren II should have been it. As it was, it went nowhere and it was sorely missed.

Charles's early exit didn't help things at all. The energy between Charles and Eric is the key relationship in this series for me, and it's also important that Charles has some meaningful scenes with the human antagonist baying for mutant blood. This left a huge void that simply wasn't filled and it seemed wrong to have an X-Men film at this point in time where Patrick didn't get top billing.

This leads me on to a key change to the dynamics that didn't work for me: Wolverine taking over. I know he's a breakout character in the comics, and I find that a little off-putting there as well, but this it feels like this is the film where it became all about Wolverine at the expense of the ensemble. He was a key figure in the first film and we saw things through his eyes so it's important he was given plenty to do. But I hate the fact that in most of the cast posters Hugh Jackman is front and centre and far more prominent in size than other actors. It seemed out of character for Logan to dramatically break down over Charles's death - particularly in front of Magneto - when there were other things to deal with. And while I can take or leave James Marden's Scott, I really disliked that the Phoenix storyline ended up being about Wolverine's love for Jean. I get that their sexual energy was explored a little in the comics as well as both earlier films, but if this storyline is about any relationship it's that between Jean and Scott. It threw things off for me and felt glaringly like it was there simply to indulge Jackman with more material.

As mentioned, there were lots of cameos, but very few were what I'd think of as beloved or classic X-Men characters. Most of the secondary and tertiary roles were faceless and bland and lacked development. There appeared to be some Morlocks, but I don't think they were mentioned by name, either as a group or individuals. Juggernaut wasn't explored at all (a blessing, all things considered) and was the wrong fit for a film in which Xavier had already died. If he were to be part of the universe, it needed to be in a place where there was space to explore his familial history with Charles. It was great to see Moira MacTaggert, however. And I'd forgotten that there was a post-credit scene which teased a significant return. I must confess it made me laugh that Moira wore a white coat and had a stethoscope round her neck in her first scene so that we knew she was a doctor. Apart from reminding me of a gag in Airplane! ("Excuse me sir. Are you a doctor", the stewardess asks the man sitting on the plane with a stethoscope round his neck), it looked like she was in the middle of some slutty doctors and nurses game. Or Lisa Scott Lee in the Chain Reaction music video.



Spot the difference:

​

 

[Spells & Karma]

I enjoyed the original Xmen trilogy!

Oh great. I must say I enjoyed it more as a trilogy this time round than I have before.

Most people would condider #2 as the best, I am a little more partial to 3,
mainly because of Sir Ian Mckellen's expanded role, and how he carries the movie, in my opinion,
with his many layers and nuances, his grief at losing Charles.=,
his passionate advocacy of his people)

I was moved by Hugh Jackman/Wolverine understated speech about how they were fighting for
Charles' legacy

Those are some very good reasons for you liking the third film.

I think your comments might have helped me enjoy the film a bit more when I watched it last night, so thanks.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Oh great. I must say I enjoyed it more as a trilogy this time round than I have before.






Those are some very good reasons for you liking the third film.

I think your comments might have helped me enjoy the film a bit more when I watched it last night, so thanks.

Glad I was able to help.
These things can be subjective, and sometimes a different perspective adds something to the viewing experience

 

[Spells & Karma]

These things can be subjective, and sometimes a different perspective adds something to the viewing experience

Yes indeed. And that's exactly why I love this site so much. It allows me to get new perspectives on even familiar territory.

 

[Spells & Karma]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

My first time watching. I've never felt particularly interested in watching since I'm not a particular fan of either the character or Hugh Jackman.

Liev Schreiber's another matter. I find him a very watchable actor and he made a great Sabretooth. A vast improvement on Tyler Mane. Other than Jackman and Liev Schreiber I had no idea who would be in this, so it was a surprise to see Gambit and Deadpool. I remember reading that young Ororo had a cameo which was cut, which was a shame. Young Scott looked nothing like older Scott and even less like new young Scott from more recent films. I think I spotted Quicksilver being held at the facility in a shot or two. Best of all for me was seeing the Blob make it onto live action, since he was prevalent in all three iterations of the Brotherhood I read at the time I first discovered the X-Men in various comics (current and reprint) circa 1983. Charles's cameo was a nice touch as well.

With this being shot down under, it was a treat so see some familiar faces from Aussie TV. Shane from Neighbours played Wolverine's father, while Kerry Armstrong's mum from Bed Of Roses appeared as a very peculiar interpretation of Heather Hudson. They turned Heather and James MacDonald into Martha and Jonathan Kent. Or perhaps Aunt May and Uncle Ben, but since I didn't pick up on their names until I read the credits they still worked well for me.

My heart sank when I saw will.i.am's name in the credits. Rappers turned actors can bring films down for me. As it turned out he was tolerable enough.

While it makes sense that Stryker would be recast, it's a shame to know that Brian Cox was unsuccessful in his bid to reprise the role hoping they could use de-ageing technology to make it possible.

As a solo character, Wolverine holds little interest for me, but I was pleasantly surprised how quickly the time went and how much I enjoyed the film. The scenery was beautiful. The initial arc with Logan and his girlfriend and their inevitable shattered idyll reminded me very much of David Banner and his wife from the pilot of The Incredible Hulk series. I even enjoyed the twist that came towards film's end with this particular arc. The fights seemed kind of pointless since both Wolverine and Sabretooth are pretty much invulnerable, but I'm glad it felt quite like a Bondian action film rather than a CGI-heavy superhero film.​

 

[Angela Chilling]

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

I watched Captain America: The First Avenger when it was first released and loved it but never got around to watching the sequels. Inspired again by @Mel O'Drama's Watching The Marvel Cinematic Universe From The Beginning I thought it was about time to change that so I watched Civil War. I mistakenly thought Civil War was the second Captain America film and I hate watching films out of sequence and that did affect my enjoyment of the film to some extent. When characters referred to events of which I wasn't previously aware, I just assumed it was something that occurred in another Marvel film which I hadn't seen (and not the first Captain America sequel) which is often the case when I have watched films in this franchise.

The film itself isn't a Captain America film, it's more of an Avengers film. I think Tony Stark probably get more screen time Captain America and there is a lot Avengers plot development that wasn't directly relevant to Captain America such as Peter Parker meeting Tony Stark and becoming an Avenger. The action sequences, fight scenes and the special effects were very good but I would have preferred a greater focus on Captain America as I was really impressed with Captain America: The First Avenger. Overall, it's a good film but it's not Captain America.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

I watched Captain America: The First Avenger when it was first released and loved it but never got around to watching the sequels. Inspired again by @Mel O'Drama's Watching The Marvel Cinematic Universe From The Beginning I thought it was about time to change that so I watched Civil War. I mistakenly thought Civil War was the second Captain America film and I hate watching films out of sequence and that did affect my enjoyment of the film to some extent. When characters referred to events of which I wasn't previously aware, I just assumed it was something that occurred in another Marvel film which I hadn't seen (and not the first Captain America sequel) which is often the case when I have watched films in this franchise.

The film itself isn't a Captain America film, it's more of an Avengers film. I think Tony Stark probably get more screen time Captain America and there is a lot Avengers plot development that wasn't directly relevant to Captain America such as Peter Parker meeting Tony Stark and becoming an Avenger. The action sequences, fight scenes and the special effects were very good but I would have preferred a greater focus on Captain America as I was really impressed with Captain America: The First Avenger. Overall, it's a good film but it's not Captain America.

Civil War was based on a Marvel comics ongoing story, and that series was so impactful and compelling that the movie adaptation was a little
disappointing for me. Maybe it would have been too difficult to do it with all the same characters as in the comics, with the absence of the Fantastic Four in the Movie
being a big disadvantage. Anyway, I would suggest that the graphic novel which encompasses the story would be a thought-provoking, enjoyable read.

 

[Spells & Karma]

I watched Captain America: The First Avenger when it was first released and loved it but never got around to watching the sequels. Inspired again by @Mel O'Drama's Watching The Marvel Cinematic Universe From The Beginning I thought it was about time to change that so I watched Civil War. I mistakenly thought Civil War was the second Captain America film and I hate watching films out of sequence and that did affect my enjoyment of the film to some extent.

Oh, that would affect my enjoyment as well, but I'm glad you found things to enjoy about it.

The film itself isn't a Captain America film, it's more of an Avengers film. I think Tony Stark probably get more screen time Captain America and there is a lot Avengers plot development that wasn't directly relevant to Captain America such as Peter Parker meeting Tony Stark and becoming an Avenger.

You possibly know this already, but I've ranked the MCU films as I watched, and the top three positions are all Captain America films.

Civil War is my #1, but it was a really tough call between both sequels for first place. In the end, I went with Civil War because I felt it embodied the MCU really well, I liked the balance of action and character-driven plot and it overcame my lack of enjoyment for the earlier team films. However, I think the first sequel - Captain America: The Winter Soldier - is probably the better film, and it's definitely the better pure Captain America film. It's one that I really want to revisit to see if it's as good as I remember.

The action sequences, fight scenes and the special effects were very good but I would have preferred a greater focus on Captain America as I was really impressed with Captain America: The First Avenger. Overall, it's a good film but it's not Captain America.

These are all reasons why I hope you watch Captain America: The Winter Soldier at some point (even though you may not want to now you've seen the follow-up). Based on what you've said I think it would be everything you'd want from a Captain America film.

 

[Angela Chilling]

Civil War was based on a Marvel comics ongoing story, and that series was so impactful and compelling that the movie adaptation was a little
disappointing for me. Maybe it would have been too difficult to do it with all the same characters as in the comics, with the absence of the Fantastic Four in the Movie
being a big disadvantage. Anyway, I would suggest that the graphic novel which encompasses the story would be a thought-provoking, enjoyable read.

I sometimes forget that some of these stories aren't original screenplays but are adapted from stories that appeared in the comics.

 

[Spells & Karma]

Civil War was based on a Marvel comics ongoing story, and that series was so impactful and compelling that the movie adaptation was a little
disappointing for me. Maybe it would have been too difficult to do it with all the same characters as in the comics, with the absence of the Fantastic Four in the Movie
being a big disadvantage. Anyway, I would suggest that the graphic novel which encompasses the story would be a thought-provoking, enjoyable read.

I sometimes forget that some of these stories aren't original screenplays but are adapted from stories that appeared in the comics.

I feel quite lucky I wasn't overly familiar with the Civil War storyline (other than Spider-Man revealing his secret identity which was huge news and enticed me to buy my first comic in many a year). But I can certainly relate to that feeling. There are many comics that I'm really familiar with and love, and invariably the films don't live up to that (I've experienced that with the X-Men films posted above, and I'm sure will continue to do so).

If I'm unfamiliar with a storyline or character I usually count my blessings as it allows me to go in with a neutral viewpoint. Usually the ones I enjoy most are the ones where I know very little or they use all new material.

 

[Angela Chilling]

You possibly know this already, but I've ranked the MCU films as I watched, and the top three positions are all Captain America films.

Civil War is my #1, but it was a really tough call between both sequels for first place. In the end, I went with Civil War because I felt it embodied the MCU really well, I liked the balance of action and character-driven plot and it overcame my lack of enjoyment for the earlier team films. However, I think the first sequel - Captain America: The Winter Soldier - is probably the better film, and it's definitely the better pure Captain America film. It's one that I really want to revisit to see if it's as good as I remember.

I've not seen anywhere as near as many MCU films as you but of those I have seen, Captain America: The First Avenger is one of my favourites. As much as I like action and fight scenes which is a major requisite of a superhero film, I also like to see a strong plot and character development. I think the first Captain America film had all that, as did Ant-Man which I recently watched, which is why I rate The First Avenger highly.

These are all reasons why I hope you watch Captain America: The Winter Soldier at some point (even though you may not want to now you've seen the follow-up). Based on what you've said I think it would be everything you'd want from a Captain America film.

I do plan to watch Winter Soldier but I'm going to leave it for a while so the events of Civil War aren't as fresh in my mind.

 

[Spells & Karma]

I've not seen anywhere as near as many MCU films as you but of those I have seen, Captain America: The First Avenger is one of my favourites.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed it as I wasn't a particular fan of the character in the comics, but in hindsight I think that helped. The period setting was wonderful as well.

As much as I like action and fight scenes which is a major requisite of a superhero film, I also like to see a strong plot and character development.

As @Crimson will tell you, I struggled with the action and fight sequences in so many of the MCU films - especially early on. For a while I thought I wasn't going to get over it, but I think the Marvel films got really good at doing the action in ways that created interest. That's part of the reason why I loved The Winter Soldier so much. It had the plot and character development you mentioned, but it was possibly the first MCU film where I actually enjoyed the action sequences as much as the bits in between. It was as close as the series got to Bond/Bourne/Mission Impossible which is the kind of action I enjoy.

I do plan to watch Winter Soldier but I'm going to leave it for a while so the events of Civil War aren't as fresh in my mind.

That's probably a good idea. Although it continues from the first film, it also stands on its own and without too many complexities from other films so it's easy to enjoy as a standalone film.

 

[Spells & Karma]

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Well, this was a curate's egg when I watched in 2011 and it's a curate's egg for me in 2022.

There are some things about the film that I love: The Sixties setting with the Cold War backdrop that, sadly, feels eerily familiar and relevant given current world events; The gorgeous locations; Henry Jackman's rousing score. I'd forgotten that the film opened in the concentration camp as in the original and that's a choice I thoroughly applaud.

But there's also much that I greatly dislike. My intial disappointment came from seeing it wasn't actually the original team of X-Men (Cyclops; Iceman; Angel; Beast, Marvel Girl), but even getting past this much of my problem has to do with anachronisms, curious continuity and off-putting choices for some characterisations. This is definitely one film where familiarity with the source material was most unhelpful, because it took a hell of a lot of of liberties.

The Hellfire Club kind of fitted into the Sixties setting given there's always been that kind of vibe to them even though they debuted much later than that, but I felt the casting was off. Tall, slim Kevin Bacon doesn't feel quite right as Sebastian Shaw to me. And while January Jones looks OK-ish as Emma Frost she lacked any sense of authority and this Emma - with her constantly bored look and vocal fry - felt too California laid-back and didn't feel classy enough. Emma may dress to show off her body, but it's her education, strong mind and air of superiority that makes her powerful and intimidating. These were all lacking.

As far as new X-Men used, many felt like they were out of the Marvel bargain bin: Darwin; Angel Jones; Riptide. I hadn't heard of any of them and nothing I saw made me want to know any more about them.

Of the new younger characters introduced to this iteration of the team (bearing in mind we've met Beast twice before) Banshee and Havok are the two I was most excited about seeing, and they kind of feel like appropriate choices given they interacted with the original team before All New, All Different. But they're also the most disappointing. There's the tricky matter of Havok - Cyclops's younger brother - being part of the team in the Sixties. Why have him at all if Cyclops isn't present. Banshee felt way too young compared with any version of the character we've seen. And his accent leads me on to another problem.

Where was Banshee's trademark Irish brogue. He sounded American. So too did Moira, and that felt so very wrong. Meanwhile, Scottish James McAvoy used contemporary RP for Charles as opposed to Patrick Stewart's mid-Atlantic accent. This had the effect of making Charles's Americanisms ("gotten", "go see", etc.) sound a little jarring despite the character being firmly established as an American. He's still a nice choice for the role, though.

Michael Fassbender was great for most of the film. His performance matched up with Ian McKellen's version and he's certainly very easy on the eye. But from his final confrontation with Shaw onwards I picked up a really curious accent which sounded like the kind of terrible pseudo American accent I'd hear in the playground at school, which mostly consisted of over-rhoticity ("You killed my motherrrrrrrrr"). It reminded me of the accent Ben Kingsley used as Trevor Slattery playing the Mandarin, but that accent made sense since Slattery - as it turned out - was meant to be a terrible actor presumably doing a terrible accent. I hadn't noticed Fassbender's accent at all until then and it continued to the very final scene. This made me wonder if the final scenes had been shot earlier, before he had dialect coach. Or perhaps I just missed it. A quick run in a search engine revealed that the accent had been quite the talking point as there are many articles discussing it, including Fassbender's own take on it. I really hope it doesn't continue into future films as it's horrible. His performance, on the other hand, lived up to the film's name.

This is the most recent of X-Films I've previously watched. Everything after this will be new to me.​

 

[Angela Chilling]

Well, this was a curate's egg when I watched in 2011 and it's a curate's egg for me in 2022.

I know what you mean but maybe for different reasons or maybe the same, I'm not sure. This was also the last X-Men film I watched in the original run and I bailed on anything that came later because I just didn't like the shift to younger actors, especially for Magneto and Xavier. I normally like Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, and it's not like they are bad in this film, but neither have the screen presence of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen and they just came across to me as second rate substitutes. That said, if I had to choose younger actors to play the part, I would be hard pushed to pick better ones for the characters but I just couldn't buy into a prequel after becoming so attached to the original cast. The story itself, and the film overall, wasn't bad.

 

[Angela Chilling]

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

I loved Spider-Man: Far From Home so it was always going to be difficult for a sequel to top it but they pulled it off. It's hard to say much about this film without giving away spoilers so I'll just make general comments as I don't think it's been discussed yet on the Watching The Marvel Cinematic Universe From The Beginning .

This film grabbed my attention from the opening scene and kept me throughout its 2½ hours. I'm more of a fan of plot and characters over action sequences but this film had a good balance of both. I'll make one exception to what I said about giving no spoilers because it's now widely known and discussed that it's no longer a secret that Tobey McGuire and Andrew Garfield reprise their roles as past incarnations of Spiderman/Spider-man. It's done in a high concept way but I bought into it immediately as it was told in a credible way. There was an interesting scene when the 3 Spidey's were on a rooftop comparing experiences and it was fascinating to compare how each of them brought something different to the role even though they were all playing the same character. I also noticed that it was the first Marvel film I watched that didn't have a Stan Lee cameo, there are probably others but this was the first time I acknowledged he was gone.

The film is not without flaws, I think there were too many villains so it became difficult to understand all their motivations and on several occasions I thought the CGI looked too much like a cartoon but they're a minor gripes on what was a great film.

I've not seen the animated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse but as the multiverse was a feature of No Way Home, I'm now keen to see it.