Dr. Strange a problematic, effective head trip

Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange in Dr. Strange. Image courtesy Disney.

It's clear the folks behind the Marvel film series have a some sort of plan as to how they want to build up toward the Infinity War mayhem come 2018. And while it is difficult to argue with the success of their plan given the positive reviews and monetary returns the films have received, the existence of a Dr. Strange film always stuck out as a particularly odd note. Of all the characters for the company to introduce, was Stephen Strange really that far ahead of Black Panther, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, or the cavalcade of other diverse characters riding deep within the company's pockets? And was it necessary to introduce Stephen Strange through his own film while continuing to neglect Black Widow, a frequent source of untapped potential within the Marvel cinematic universe?

The answer is yes and no, at least in the sense of his necessity not to the continuity to the universe, but to the differentiation of the company's otherwise cookie cutter approach to its superhero franchise. Dr. Strange is Marvel's head trip, the experimental, trippy adventure designed to explore regions the company has yet to reach out to thus far. Marvel needs Dr. Strange as a film, and as a character, to add a new dimension to its repertoire. The film is a go at a shot in the arm for the company to mix things up a little bit and step away from the more staid adventures of Thor, the overused Iron Man and Captain America. Dr. Strange is Marvel doing something a little different than what they've had before, although the film itself isn't really that far away from what the company has done for the last decade.

There's nothing inherently inventive about Dr. Strange's narrative. It's a pretty basic origin story featuring Benedict Cumberbatch – copying Robert Downey Junior's swagger and lifting Hugh Laurie's American accent – as the titular doctor rendered useless due to an ego-inflicted auto accident and forced to cure himself through Eastern mysticism. His quest places him smack dab in the middle of a mystical war between Tilda Swinton's Ancient One and a rogue warlock named Kaecilius (played by Mads Mikkelsen). Dr. Strange has a large amount of Iron Man in its DNA, with Strange and Tony Stark each serving as solipsistic geniuses who must reluctantly learn some degree of modesty to reach their true potential. Additional elements, including the potential romantic partner on the periphery (in this case a very wasted Rachel McAdams), a black best friend (Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo) and a loose comedic underpinning that has become something of a hallmark for these films also crop up.

What separates Dr. Strange from Iron Man, Avengers and the rest of the Marvel slate is its visual experimentation. This is a film carried thoroughly by its special effects, from the Inception inspired building folds to some trip Stephen Strange through the mind, dimensions, time and beyond, making it resemble at times a very expensive art film befitting the character. This is the reason why Marvel needed a film like Dr. Strange to move away from the action laden flicks of the past couple of years to something a little more opaque. Marvel needed this idea to work, and the visuals at least come close to justifying a Dr. Strange film.

But Stephen Strange has a few underlying issues as a comic book hero that come creeping up in the film, no matter how hard Marvel and Disney try to scrub it away. The very nature of Strange's character arc involves cultural reappropriation, using the exotic concept of Eastern religion to strengthen a white character that reduces Eastern culture into a stereotypical concept and exists just to make the white male character look better by comparison. At issue too is the casting of Swinton as The Ancient One, in which a lily white woman replaces an older Asian male. While there is indeed an argument to be made for avoiding certain stereotypes related to the aforementioned culture problem, the film still replaces a minority character with a white one, which brings up a whole slew of issues of its own.

All of this makes Dr. Strange a funky step for Marvel to take in its world construction. There is a need for someone like Stephen Strange in the company's current roster, and the aesthetics of the film offer some balance to everything else. Yet the character trappings ultimately diminish what is, by concept, a pretty interesting film. It marks a step forward and a step backward for Marvel, with the hope the backward step is not a prelude of what to expect over the next three years.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 115 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone who has watched a Marvel film since Iron Man.

Take the whole family?: There's nothing overly objectionable content wise, although the film could bother little kids do to some of its graphics along with a couple of swears.

Theater or Netflix?: You'll probably go see it, so if you do pay for the matinee.

What other Marvel characters deserve their own films?: I've vouched for Black Widow and Quasar before, but Marvel could do a fair amount with She-Hulk as a more intelligent, controlled Hulk and Ms. Marvel. It’d be fascinating to see a Squirrel Girl film too, which, if based on the current iteration of the character, would be focused on goofy adventures and a push away from violence.

Watch this as well?: Guardians of the Galaxy, the first Avengers and Winter Soldier remain the cream of the crop of the Marvel films. You could also hit up Inception and 2001: A Space Odyssey to see Dr. Strange's visual influencers.

Heroes fight heroes in aptly titled 'Civil War'

Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. star in "Captain America: Civil War". Image courtesy Disney.

In most other years I’d be much more elated to see “Captain America: Civil War.” It’s mostly what I want from a superhero film, a smart film with well-done action sequences and one of the most fascinating villains the Marvel franchise has produced. Timing is part of the film’s issue, with the spate of comic book flicks wearing me out as a viewer, and the film does possess some of the issues afflicted “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and especially “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” That “Civil War” remains an entertaining, exciting flick despite those problems is a testament to the filmmakers’ talents and to the performances of Chris Evans as the eponymous hero and Daniel Brühl as the villain Zemo.

Offering too much of the plot in this case

At the heart of “Civil War” is the question of what the world should do with beings of enormous strength and talents who traipse around the world doing as they please. The solution in the film is to rein in the heroes with a third party, in this case the United Nations, providing oversight and control to these beings when they fight aliens, gods and insane robots. It’s a solution that splits the Avengers, with one camp led by a perpetually guilt-ridden Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) in favor of some control over them: he’s joined by War Machine (Don Cheadle), Vision (Paul Bettany), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland). Evans’ liberty loving Captain America opposes the concept and is wary of government agendas: he has Black Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) in agreement. Conflict between the camps arises after Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) is accused of bombing a United Nations meeting, pitting Captain America’s old friend against Iron Man’s crew and a vengeful Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman). Is everything as black and white as it seems though? And what, exactly, is Zemo up to on the periphery of the heroes’ internal struggle?

My main regret with the otherwise very good “Civil War” is the diminished presence of the eponymous hero. Evans has grown into the role beautifully since his first outing, establishing why he is the leader of a band of loners featuring a god, a rage-fueled beast, and a lovable alcoholic narcissist. Yet the almost two-and-a-half hour run time features almost as much Tony Stark – a character with three films to himself – as it does Steve Rogers, and there is much more to mine from the character. Perhaps rerouting Stark's visit to Queens to meet Spider-Man (a line or two of dialogue would have covered it) into Rogers' story would have helped. As it is, “Civil War” is a better “Avengers” film than a feature on Captain America, and I’d still like to see another entry devoted to Evans’ Steve Rogers.

It's a symptom of a larger problem with these superhero films, the need to incorporate as many characters as possible to build to the end game. A film purportedly about Captain America spends a sizable amount of time introducing characters like Spider-Man and Black Panther – both of whom have their own movies scheduled for release in 2017 and 2018, respectively – while balancing screen time for established characters like Black Widow (who still does not have her own film), Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Black Falcon, Bucky Barnes, Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Vision, Hawkeye, War Machine, Iron Man and Cap himself. The villain also must receive a modicum of attention to keep the plot moving, although not quite enough to make him as vital as he should be (Brühl can only do so much with so little time). “Civil War” is a hefty film, but it isn't long enough to offer adequate time for all these characters and the regular plot machinations without some trimming, leaving Brühl's Zemo and Hawkeye a little left out and cutting down the quality time spent with Cap and Black Widow – a the high point of “Winter Soldier.”

“Civil War” nearly pulls it all off though thanks to some terrific writing and the directing talents of Anthony and Joe Russo, who know how to stage a good, satisfying fight scene between super powered protagonists and keep the film going with ease. Even with so much time diverted to the plethora of characters the filmmakers always focus on telling a complete story with depth and nuance and one heck of a twist at the end. And Brühl's Zemo makes for a compelling, quiet villain who succeeds without the aid of super powers or impossible technology. He's cunning and ruthless and daring, yet oddly sympathetic because he fights such powerful figures without powers or even henchmen to throw at them. It’s a nice change of pace from the textbook big bads in the other Marvel properties.

“Civil War” is a victory for comic book fans and the millions of people who will flock to theaters this weekend to see it. The film is on the upper end of what the genre has to offer, offering a good balance of smarts and brawn while effectively setting up the massive two-parter three years down the line. It's still admittedly a slight step down from “Winter Soldier” – arguably the best of the recent Marvel films – but “Civil War” is still a damn good superhero movie.

Review: Four and a quarter out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 146 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Pretty much anyone willing to pay money to see Marvel superheroes fight.

Take the whole family?: There is a fair amount of violence in this, so perhaps keep kids younger than 10 at home.

Theater or Netflix?: Definitely good enough for a theater trip. It's also much more fun with an audience.

Why can't DC do films like this?: Some of it is on Marvel/Disney, who are smart enough to build up to its main selling point instead of tossing two vital characters fight on the first shot. “Civil War” is a logical progression of the relationship between Captain American and Iron Man, with a modicum of third-party puppetry thrown in; “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” features two idiots too dumb to talk to each other and avoid their battle royale.

Watch this as well?: The first two “Captain America” films are among the best to come out in Marvel's recent spate of releases, while the first “Avengers” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” are a lot of fun as well. Feel free to skip “Howard the Duck” though.