In the section for Paddington in this article, I linked to my reviews of the two Paddington movies (as well as a Letterboxd page reviewing all three movies). But the short answer is, yes, they are genuinely great, sweet, moving, and very clever.
Brilliant piece! Lots to comment on, but I'll jump in where you leave off: I also was left wondering what exactly is meant to be the Brave New World, as this one seemed same-y, safe, and a bit uncertain. It promised something new, perhaps even surprising or shocking. Alas.
The writing does evoke a whiff of Lost, in which the writers are laying tracks immediately in front of the train.
I think it was telling that the original title was "New World Order" and, to avoid controversy, it became "Brave New World", the assumption being both titles were interchangeable because they meant nothing.
Unpopular hot take: maybe about five movies ago, they needed to start unceremoniously killing people. Clint Barton at the end of the "Hawkeye" show. Half the Eternals. And in this movie, EVERYONE. People are tired of the lack of stakes in these movie, and it's clear not everyone can be invited to fight Marvel's little Secret War(s). How amazing would it be to do a fourth Captain America with a new Captain, and then have him die heroically, because the Brave New World isn't all that kind to heroes? Give everyone something to ave- you know what I mean.*
Also, I read a lot about how this was going to be a backdoor pilot for a World War Hulk movie, with the Leader out there somewhere, a green and red Hulk, She-Hulk, Skaar and supposedly the movie's deleted introduction of Amadeus Cho. I don't love that idea overall, but it's a lot better than whatever THIS was.
*I do hope they follow through with the idea that the new Fantastic Four movie ends apocalyptic, forcing the characters from their world to ours. God forbid you invite a little tragedy into these movies!
Totally agree. Part of the reason Endgame was so successful is specifically BECAUSE it killed several of the original team (3 if you count Rogers' retirement). The stakes were real, which made the victory meaningful. I still maintain they should've killed Clint, not Nat. A topic for another time. Though I did enjoy the Hawkeye spin-off.
I can't imagine World War Hulk working (plus they cribbed that vibe in Ragnarok) but I loved the comic, and thus would be in for a good rendition.
I think the root problem here is dying characters get in the way of the studios' plans for perpetual money-making IP. They don't care about the art, only the profit.
I think the studio is of the mindset that they'd rather have more characters to choose from, not less. There isn't a lot we know about the casts of these next two Avengers movies, but I'm sure there are some major scheduling conflicts that can't be negotiated.
OK, I saw Paddington 3 yesterday. It was cute. Paddington himself is a dead-eyed obvious post-production add-in, which makes all the attempts at slapstick surrounding the character fall flat IMO. But everyone around him is having fun, and I think most of the gags land. It's no Dog Man, although, what is?
Mostly though my head hurts trying to parse whether Paddington is supposed to be Latino! Like, did the white Britons (I assume) who wrote the film know what they were doing when they made his final line "I'm a whole lot of Brown!" ?? And is having the film's true villain turn out to be a nun a commentary on the Catholic Church's role in the conquest of Latin America???? But also, when Paddington has the white boy make a big machine that converts the raw natural riches of the New World into a quintessentially Bri'ish foodstuff (complete with a bottling station so it can be exported to Europe), isn't he literally doing a colonialism?????? I genuinely have no idea lmao.
This was very cathartic! I had intended to do these two films as a double feature but illness meant I could only see one, which meant I slogged thru Captain America. Which I hated, hated, hated! There is a sort of reflexive critical posture towards these movies where people go "oh, you're seeing a Marvel? Do you want a baby rattle, you baby?" - I know because I used to have it! - but I feel like that gets in the way of meaningful criticisms of where these films go wrong, relative to "real," Scorsese-approved cinema, as well as to other movies in the same genre.
Like, it's insane how inept the villain in this movie is, right?? He can turn anyone who so much as looks at their smartphone into a brainwashed assassin!! (Everyone is saying this movie has shades of "Manchurian Candidate" but the correct reference point is "Telefon" with Charles Bronson - or, hilariously, "Naked Gun.") Surely this is a premise that can be mined for tension -- have the bad guy hypnotize Torres or Mossad lady! They have Bucky show up, so they know this is a direction a Marvel movie can take, right?
Ah well. I'll see Paddington this week and maybe I will calm down about missed opportunities.
Supposedly there was an effort to bring the people from the Falcon And Winter Soldier show onto the movie. But then why do all these movies feel like they're made by someone who didn't watch the previous shows or movies? You should know what happened before, and how to top it, what sort of spectacle to provide. "Shiny phones make sleeper soldiers" is such a weak hook, and the movie isn't even committal about it! And then the Leader just gives himself up? For what? I guess we'll find out again in another seventeen years?
Well, I mean this in SEVERAL ways when I tell them stop introducing characters and start telling stories.
This is a chicken or the egg thing, but look at all the titles of every Marvel movie. They're all TOUGH MAN. FLYING LADY. KILLERDUDE. And then KILLERDUDE: WRATHFUL DEATH. They name everything after the character and just ASSUME we're in it for that character.
It's interesting to tell non-comic fans about the characters in these movies. To say, "Oh, yeah, everyone reads X-Men," but then to say, "No one ever really cared about the Guardians Of The Galaxy comics" or "Blade would disappear for years on end" or even "I don't think there's ever been a Madame Web book." Blade and Blade 2 were great, but you have a massive movie star playing him, and those movies were built on vibes, visuals and the soundtrack. The Guardians were rebuilt from the ground up to survive in the movies, turned into sentimental comedies.
It's not about the characters anymore. People love Spider-Man because they grew up in Spidey jammies. Captain Marvel, meanwhile, can't withstand a movie series because there are no good Captain Marvel stories, and you're clearly not trying to create a new one. Just because someone walks through the door and says, "I AM KINGO," it doesn't mean you have a successful beloved franchise ready to go.
Frankly, I'd advertise those two upcoming movies as DOOMSDAY and SECRET WARS, and I'd shuck the AVENGERS label. Give people a sense of unpredictability. Convince them there might be an actual story going on, and not an elaborate and poorly-run game of Genre Jenga.
When I say worse that Batman and Robin I mean there is nothing bat shit enough about them to make them infamously bad. Say we want but that is Shoemaker just cooking solo in that kitchen. It’s bad yes but at least it’s interesting in a disaster dumpster monster baby way.
And I think these need to go away for like 5-7 years and come back rebooted and different like Batman and Robin to 2000’s X-men.
Let something else fill in the hole. These aren’t going to get better because they used all their biggest characters already and knocked it out with endgame and now absolutely have zero idea how to make anything interesting after. Everybody keeps holding their breath for the next good one and it ain’t happening. Not even Fantastic Four. Mark these words lol.
The best comic adaptation I’ve watched in a long time was Creature Commandos. If they need to be all animated for a few years than so be it.
I would love to see them try a show in the vein of Alex Ross' "Marvels", about someone who wasn't a superpowered person and had no obvious ties to them. What is every day life like in that world? Like, make a "Revolutionary Road" in the MCU.
Hey, I’d give that show a shot as long as it doesn’t throw in some cringe cameo like Agent of Shield is the next door neighbor or something.
But these movies are increasingly becoming something worse than Batman and Robin. And they’ve gotten so bad that it has the season 8 Game of Thrones effect on me of “was this whole thing not as good as I thought it was???”.
I do think monsters could be the new superhero by seeing Creature Commandos and Werewolf By Night’s success.
Take those worlds and make something better that Stephen Sommers tried to do and failed miserably at with Van Helsing.
But I’m more of a horror guy anyway obviously and well The Dark Universe does kinda defeat my point.
In fairness, I think American society is struggling with this too. These are nakedly optimistic movies about the idea that there are recognizable good guys and bad guys in our society. And yet, I feel like when I share a juvenile notion of "bad guys" in certain places, it yields results I would not obviously expect. The bad guys have fairly high approval ratings, is what I'm saying. Audible wink.
Honestly, I could write a 500 page book about why the movies are weaker now than they once were. At this point, I think they should give everyone a loose chronological roadmap, and then just let directors cook. I heard the mandate for the last few movies, with some exceptions, was to keep MCU movies under two hours. I approve of this. But I have a distinct feeling this isn't the only mandate being handed down to these filmmakers. These last few movies, they've distinctively handed material down to lightweights who 1) Don't seem like they wield a lot of power 2) Have no input on the script and action and 3) Haven't seen all the movies + shows. I'm currently working my way through ALL MCU media (obviously I missed some years) and I don't think it's a reasonable ask to incorporate (and sometimes delete) certain ideas into the movies based on what's already come up. Some of the stuff in this movie seems like it comes from a writer who never even saw the preceding TV show.
Great article! I've seen a fair number of Marvel movies but none of the Paddingtons.
In your opinion, are they as good as rumored? Are they better than average?
One day, a villain in the MCU will get Adamantium fillings and develop a smile impervious to all punches, even the Hulk's!
In the section for Paddington in this article, I linked to my reviews of the two Paddington movies (as well as a Letterboxd page reviewing all three movies). But the short answer is, yes, they are genuinely great, sweet, moving, and very clever.
Wow. Between this and your note about baseball movies (https://substack.com/@fromtheyardtothearthouse/note/c-93810938 ) I am impressed by your combination of nerdy cultural knowledge and the ability to marshal it to make a broader point.
Also I love this phrase, "Ross ends up involving America in an international mishigoss involving adamantium"
I have spent my entire life preparing for moments like these, thank you.
Brilliant piece! Lots to comment on, but I'll jump in where you leave off: I also was left wondering what exactly is meant to be the Brave New World, as this one seemed same-y, safe, and a bit uncertain. It promised something new, perhaps even surprising or shocking. Alas.
The writing does evoke a whiff of Lost, in which the writers are laying tracks immediately in front of the train.
I think it was telling that the original title was "New World Order" and, to avoid controversy, it became "Brave New World", the assumption being both titles were interchangeable because they meant nothing.
Unpopular hot take: maybe about five movies ago, they needed to start unceremoniously killing people. Clint Barton at the end of the "Hawkeye" show. Half the Eternals. And in this movie, EVERYONE. People are tired of the lack of stakes in these movie, and it's clear not everyone can be invited to fight Marvel's little Secret War(s). How amazing would it be to do a fourth Captain America with a new Captain, and then have him die heroically, because the Brave New World isn't all that kind to heroes? Give everyone something to ave- you know what I mean.*
Also, I read a lot about how this was going to be a backdoor pilot for a World War Hulk movie, with the Leader out there somewhere, a green and red Hulk, She-Hulk, Skaar and supposedly the movie's deleted introduction of Amadeus Cho. I don't love that idea overall, but it's a lot better than whatever THIS was.
*I do hope they follow through with the idea that the new Fantastic Four movie ends apocalyptic, forcing the characters from their world to ours. God forbid you invite a little tragedy into these movies!
Totally agree. Part of the reason Endgame was so successful is specifically BECAUSE it killed several of the original team (3 if you count Rogers' retirement). The stakes were real, which made the victory meaningful. I still maintain they should've killed Clint, not Nat. A topic for another time. Though I did enjoy the Hawkeye spin-off.
I can't imagine World War Hulk working (plus they cribbed that vibe in Ragnarok) but I loved the comic, and thus would be in for a good rendition.
I think the root problem here is dying characters get in the way of the studios' plans for perpetual money-making IP. They don't care about the art, only the profit.
I think the studio is of the mindset that they'd rather have more characters to choose from, not less. There isn't a lot we know about the casts of these next two Avengers movies, but I'm sure there are some major scheduling conflicts that can't be negotiated.
OK, I saw Paddington 3 yesterday. It was cute. Paddington himself is a dead-eyed obvious post-production add-in, which makes all the attempts at slapstick surrounding the character fall flat IMO. But everyone around him is having fun, and I think most of the gags land. It's no Dog Man, although, what is?
Mostly though my head hurts trying to parse whether Paddington is supposed to be Latino! Like, did the white Britons (I assume) who wrote the film know what they were doing when they made his final line "I'm a whole lot of Brown!" ?? And is having the film's true villain turn out to be a nun a commentary on the Catholic Church's role in the conquest of Latin America???? But also, when Paddington has the white boy make a big machine that converts the raw natural riches of the New World into a quintessentially Bri'ish foodstuff (complete with a bottling station so it can be exported to Europe), isn't he literally doing a colonialism?????? I genuinely have no idea lmao.
This was very cathartic! I had intended to do these two films as a double feature but illness meant I could only see one, which meant I slogged thru Captain America. Which I hated, hated, hated! There is a sort of reflexive critical posture towards these movies where people go "oh, you're seeing a Marvel? Do you want a baby rattle, you baby?" - I know because I used to have it! - but I feel like that gets in the way of meaningful criticisms of where these films go wrong, relative to "real," Scorsese-approved cinema, as well as to other movies in the same genre.
Like, it's insane how inept the villain in this movie is, right?? He can turn anyone who so much as looks at their smartphone into a brainwashed assassin!! (Everyone is saying this movie has shades of "Manchurian Candidate" but the correct reference point is "Telefon" with Charles Bronson - or, hilariously, "Naked Gun.") Surely this is a premise that can be mined for tension -- have the bad guy hypnotize Torres or Mossad lady! They have Bucky show up, so they know this is a direction a Marvel movie can take, right?
Ah well. I'll see Paddington this week and maybe I will calm down about missed opportunities.
Supposedly there was an effort to bring the people from the Falcon And Winter Soldier show onto the movie. But then why do all these movies feel like they're made by someone who didn't watch the previous shows or movies? You should know what happened before, and how to top it, what sort of spectacle to provide. "Shiny phones make sleeper soldiers" is such a weak hook, and the movie isn't even committal about it! And then the Leader just gives himself up? For what? I guess we'll find out again in another seventeen years?
Also Mantis forever!
I used to watch this on Friday nights in real-time along the X Files.
M.A.N.T.I.S. ARMY UNITE.
Epic bruh. This movie is not deserving of your analysis.
Throw on your fire retardant blanket for this HOT take Dec..I’m startin to think these Marvel movies ain’t what they used to be.
I’ve fallen off from this franchise in the last few years. There’s only been 2-3 I’ve enjoyed post Endgame.
All strong points. I’d read that book and I think they should too.
Well, I mean this in SEVERAL ways when I tell them stop introducing characters and start telling stories.
This is a chicken or the egg thing, but look at all the titles of every Marvel movie. They're all TOUGH MAN. FLYING LADY. KILLERDUDE. And then KILLERDUDE: WRATHFUL DEATH. They name everything after the character and just ASSUME we're in it for that character.
It's interesting to tell non-comic fans about the characters in these movies. To say, "Oh, yeah, everyone reads X-Men," but then to say, "No one ever really cared about the Guardians Of The Galaxy comics" or "Blade would disappear for years on end" or even "I don't think there's ever been a Madame Web book." Blade and Blade 2 were great, but you have a massive movie star playing him, and those movies were built on vibes, visuals and the soundtrack. The Guardians were rebuilt from the ground up to survive in the movies, turned into sentimental comedies.
It's not about the characters anymore. People love Spider-Man because they grew up in Spidey jammies. Captain Marvel, meanwhile, can't withstand a movie series because there are no good Captain Marvel stories, and you're clearly not trying to create a new one. Just because someone walks through the door and says, "I AM KINGO," it doesn't mean you have a successful beloved franchise ready to go.
Frankly, I'd advertise those two upcoming movies as DOOMSDAY and SECRET WARS, and I'd shuck the AVENGERS label. Give people a sense of unpredictability. Convince them there might be an actual story going on, and not an elaborate and poorly-run game of Genre Jenga.
Dammit, I overwrite about this topic.
When I say worse that Batman and Robin I mean there is nothing bat shit enough about them to make them infamously bad. Say we want but that is Shoemaker just cooking solo in that kitchen. It’s bad yes but at least it’s interesting in a disaster dumpster monster baby way.
Captain Falcon and Brave New Hulk not so much.
God, this makes me wish the Sony movies were weirder.
We’ll always have Tom Hardy in Venom 1.
I think you nail a huge problem on the head.
And I think these need to go away for like 5-7 years and come back rebooted and different like Batman and Robin to 2000’s X-men.
Let something else fill in the hole. These aren’t going to get better because they used all their biggest characters already and knocked it out with endgame and now absolutely have zero idea how to make anything interesting after. Everybody keeps holding their breath for the next good one and it ain’t happening. Not even Fantastic Four. Mark these words lol.
The best comic adaptation I’ve watched in a long time was Creature Commandos. If they need to be all animated for a few years than so be it.
I'd love if they went away so we could miss them.
But come on. That's not happening.
I would love to see them try a show in the vein of Alex Ross' "Marvels", about someone who wasn't a superpowered person and had no obvious ties to them. What is every day life like in that world? Like, make a "Revolutionary Road" in the MCU.
Hey, I’d give that show a shot as long as it doesn’t throw in some cringe cameo like Agent of Shield is the next door neighbor or something.
But these movies are increasingly becoming something worse than Batman and Robin. And they’ve gotten so bad that it has the season 8 Game of Thrones effect on me of “was this whole thing not as good as I thought it was???”.
I do think monsters could be the new superhero by seeing Creature Commandos and Werewolf By Night’s success.
Take those worlds and make something better that Stephen Sommers tried to do and failed miserably at with Van Helsing.
But I’m more of a horror guy anyway obviously and well The Dark Universe does kinda defeat my point.
In fairness, I think American society is struggling with this too. These are nakedly optimistic movies about the idea that there are recognizable good guys and bad guys in our society. And yet, I feel like when I share a juvenile notion of "bad guys" in certain places, it yields results I would not obviously expect. The bad guys have fairly high approval ratings, is what I'm saying. Audible wink.
I’ve opened Pandora’s Box lol
I’m just a humble iconoclast who calls it like he sees it pushing against the pop cultural tide.
Hey, settle down with this radical thought!
Honestly, I could write a 500 page book about why the movies are weaker now than they once were. At this point, I think they should give everyone a loose chronological roadmap, and then just let directors cook. I heard the mandate for the last few movies, with some exceptions, was to keep MCU movies under two hours. I approve of this. But I have a distinct feeling this isn't the only mandate being handed down to these filmmakers. These last few movies, they've distinctively handed material down to lightweights who 1) Don't seem like they wield a lot of power 2) Have no input on the script and action and 3) Haven't seen all the movies + shows. I'm currently working my way through ALL MCU media (obviously I missed some years) and I don't think it's a reasonable ask to incorporate (and sometimes delete) certain ideas into the movies based on what's already come up. Some of the stuff in this movie seems like it comes from a writer who never even saw the preceding TV show.