Marvel's Doctor Strange

Marvel's Doctor Strange ~ I was first introduced to Doctor Strange during the Avengers/Defenders war in the early seventies as he was the leader of the latter superhero team. I knew he was Marvel's 'magic guy' and that he'd been around since the beginning of the Marvel Age and was created by Steve Ditko and Stan Lee, the same team that brought us Spider-Man originally, but little else.

While my impression was usually the Sal Buscema Defenders leader, as I grew older I started to read the Ditko stuff, and it was out there, very weird with outlandish villains and bizarre mindscapes. I never dreamed anything like it could be brought to the screen, and yet the previews seem to indicate it can be done. But then again, I never imagined we'd have an Avengers movie, let alone three - Marvel is just full of miracles.

Beware spoilers hereafter.

I am not a Cumberbitch. I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality that I'm not afraid to say when a man is attractive, but I have never understood what women and men see in Benedict Cumberbatch. I love "Sherlock," but he's so unlikable a character there, and let's face it, his Khan was one of the worst things about Star Trek Into Darkness. So I was not sold when I heard Cumberbatch was cast as Doctor Stephen Strange. He proved me wrong. After seeing the movie, I can't see anyone else in the role.

The story is thematically the same as the hero's first appearance from 1963's Strange Tales #110, which I had first read more than four decades ago in Stan Lee's Origins of Marvel Comics. Arrogant surgeon Stephen Strange gets in a car accident that damages his hands. Unable to continue as a surgeon, Strange searches the world for cure, eventually coming upon the Ancient One, who gives him a new vocation with magic. Long story short, of course.

All the elements are here, the desperation, the salvation, but a few things are turned on their head. I'll start with the good and move to the ugly. We get more insight on major Doctor Strange enemy Baron Mordo, fellow student of the mystic arts under the Ancient One. I really liked Chiwetel Ejiofor here, easily one of the best performances of the movie, especially as he changes in the space of the film, beginning as an ally then by the end credit sequence, more villain than the actual villain of this piece.

Let's talk about Mads Mikkelsen and the character he plays, Kaecillius. I realize now that Kaecillius is an old school Silver Age foe of Strange, although essentially a henchman of Mordo's, but until the movie I had no idea who he was, and had to look him up. Why was he chosen as our hero's first foe? I wouldn't normally mind such an unknown entity if the actor behind him was worthy, and he is - Mads is a major heavy with incredible talent, but they really do very little with him or Kaecillius here. It's all posturing and posing, no real depth. All we get is Mordo, and we really have to wait for the sequel to see his evil turn.

And then there's the Ancient One. I have nothing against Tilda Swinton or her performance, she's amazing, and funny, and ominous, and tragic. But she's white. It's her casting I still have a problem with. With Mordo, a black man was cast into the role of a white character to wonderfully add diversity to the painfully white Marvel Age of the early sixties. But the Ancient One is actually one of the few Asian characters in that same age, and the producers chose to cast a white woman in that role.

In old Hollywood, this was called whitewashing. Taking an Asian role and casting white actors to play Asian. Movies that I love, like The Mask of Fu Manchu, The Good Earth, and Mr. Wu, are stained by both this practice and the racial stereotypes depicted. Sidebar to the stereotypes, Wong, Doctor Strange's servant is treated well and as an equal if not a better to Strange in this film, gracefully and cheekily by Benedict Wong. Notably the character was also treated equally well in the often forgotten but quite good 1978 television movie/pilot of Dr. Strange. Back on point, which is worse, the color blind casting of Mordo, or the whitewashing of the Ancient One?

Rachel McAdams is merely a plot device in the film, who could have been more, but doesn't live up to potential. If they were going to use Night Nurse in this film, why not use Rosario Dawson from the Netflix Marvel Television Universe? But then again, I admit my bias toward her, but why create another Night Nurse character - isn't the comics continuity confusing enough? I would have rather had Clea, perhaps we'll get her in the sequel.

Strange's journey into the magic world is wonderfully depicted, I even dug the Inception-like special effects of turning one's surroundings into a weapon by altering its structure (up is down, shifting buildings, moving gravity, and Escher nightmares). This was one of the ways the film depicted magic, and it made the fight scenes phenomenal, something we'd never seen before. I liked that the Cloak of Levitation was like a wicked stepbrother to the Rug from Disney's Aladdin and seemed to have a fun sentience. And then there's the rings.

The concept that certain items are imbued with magic and aid in the casting of spells is a solid and revered concept. Much of the Doctor Strange comics mythos comes from this - the Cloak, the Eye, etc., and then there's the Sling Ring, created for this film. The Sling Ring helps to cast portals, and without it, a portal cannot be opened. It actually plays well in some of the fight scenes I mentioned. When Strange says, "Sling Ring, do your thing" at one point, it completely removed me from the film.

Back in the bad old days of the 1970s when there really wasn't all that much comic book superheroism on television, and what there was was changed or made silly, there was a Saturday morning cartoon called "Fred and Barney Meet the Thing." Yes, that Fred and Barney. One of the program's segments featured a teenaged Ben Grim who could transform into the Thing by bringing two rings together and saying, "Thing Ring, do your thing." It took a while to recover when that happened in the film.

While I wished that Dormammu had a bit more fire (less Zemo, more Dormammu), I loved his representation here, and even the uncredited fact Cumberbatch did his voice. The way Strange beats him is brilliant. Casting problems and Thing Rings aside, I really did enjoy this movie. Of course stay through the credits for the two extra scenes, one a set-up for Mordo, and the other a seemingly mismatched piece directed by James Gunn that prologues Thor: Ragnarok. Highly recommended, as are most of the Marvel films.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I came late to the party, or at least it seemed that way. By the time I first saw the Rankin-Bass version of "The Hobbit" on television, which I learned about from posters in the English classrooms at school, many of my friends were already into JRR Tolkien. I really enjoyed the animated film and later sought the book out, which I also dug.

Then I moved on to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This was dense and not written in the light manner of "The Hobbit." I got through "Fellowship" and started "Two Towers," then gave up on it. I put Tolkien in the same category as H.P. Lovecraft and George Lucas, great conceptualists, but lousy on the follow through. Over the next quarter century I did finish the trilogy and even re-read it, but Tolkien's style was not for me.

I did enjoy the LotR movies by Peter Jackson however, but I wasn't gaga over it. My brother-in-law was. He convinced me to watch the ten-hour DVD set of it, and it was all right, once. He also got me to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I was a bit more excited for. Until the middle of the film, it seemed to go on forever. However once it got rolling it was pretty good, the bits with Gollum, and the Orcs on their trail had my interest.

I recently got a chance to finally see the second installment of The Hobbit, The Desolation of Smaug. First, three parts? Really? This couldn't be one, or two at most? This one had the same problem as the first, it dragged, was even boring in parts. I know Peter Jackson, and a majority of his fan base are in love with Middle-Earth, but it's gotta end some time, and you can't make other people love by making these movies longer.

Has anyone thought of possibly making a TV series, new adventures set in Middle-Earth, to possibly fill this need? Will Jackson be filming "The Silmarillion" or "Tom Bombadil" and making them six to nine hours long? There has to be a stop point, folks. I could see new tales (and there's been a little of that here), but stretching one book to match the trilogy made from three?

Lord of the Rings is a major problem here too, even though those events happen almost a century after The Hobbit. So much is put into setting up LotR that this is more like parts 1-3 of Star Wars rather than The Hobbit. All the bits with Legolas and Sauron, were they really needed, or was this continuity minutiae like what Roy Thomas did with World War II in the All-Star Squadron comic book series?

That said, the Legolas fight scenes were among the best in the movie even though none of it occurred in the book. It also occurs to me why isn't Orlando Bloom in a Marvel movie yet? He is action hero material, and he would be heaven sent casting as Quicksilver, even though that ship has left the dock. I also liked Smaug as voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. He was very good, except for when he was filling LotR continuity holes. I also disliked the weird love triangle, what the hell was that about?

I liked the movie okay, and it had slow spots as well, giving me a few quick cat naps. I look forward to the third and hopefully final Hobbit film, but I'm not sure I'll see it in the theater, after all, I waited nine months for this one. Your mileage may vary.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness ~ There was so much hype about is-it-Khan-or-isn't-it that I think it really overshadowed what a great film this truly is. Maybe if J.J. Abrams hadn't kept it such a big secret, and just not made a big deal about it, maybe the reception would have been different. Sure this sequel did well, and there will be a third, but I think it could have done better. I mean, seriously, if it came out that this was going to be a remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, different or exactly the same, couldn't that have only helped box office sales?

Yes, the circumstances are different, and yes, things play out very Bizarro World in some places, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. I think it's cool. Abrams did a wonderful thing with the first movie. He found a way for old fans and new fans of Trek to get the best of both worlds. There's a new continuity without jettisoning the old one, can it get much better than that? New and old fans get a new Khan story, and old fans get to see a parallel universe to the one they know. This is a good thing.

I liked the parallels. I like the new and known dynamics of the Kirk/Spock relationship, and well all the other character relationships. While I do yearn for a seasoned Kirk who knows what to do, I like this young guy too. All the characters get good screen time, the actors give great performances, and the villain(s) do as well. Benedict Cumberbatch is both a compelling actor, but a very compelling villain as well. His casting was golden. He's no Ricardo Montelban, but he is Khan.

The other thing I loved is probably something that the old Trekkies and Trekkers hate. I loved the action. It never stops. Star Trek Into Darkness is a fast rollercoaster ride of an action movie. This is not your grandfather's Star Trek where they talk their enemies to death, this is, again, the best of both worlds. I should note that the story has some problems, both in logic and in flow, but you don't have time to think about it until after it's over.

And many folks I know had a problem with what seems at first a cop out in the story. That would be young Spock confronting old Spock on a situation he had already encountered. Hello? If your alternate universe future self were readily available for you to access his experience, wouldn’t the logical thing be to consult him, and consult him as much as possible? Eat Vulcan logic, Trekkies.

Visually stunning, wonderfully written, directed, and acted, this is one hell of a movie. I will grant you, this isn't as good as the first one, but it continues the story suitably and respectfully. Maybe for the new Trek series, the odd-numbered sequels are the good ones.