A reasonably up-to-speed villain-lover's guide to Marvel - Phase Three B (Infinity War to Endgame)

The final Marvel stint for a while. I have already made inroads into the phase four stuff – including Loki! – but it will keep.

Avengers: Infinity War

So, is Loki in this one? Actually, yes, for the first ten minutes or so. Then he dies.

But that's a fake-out, right, like the other times he "died"? I mean, they made a TV series about him and everything! The TV series is about an earlier version of Loki. It's complicated. Anyway, this time the death is for real, and a way for Loki to redeem himself.

Ugh, always these Redemptive Deaths. If it's a comfort, it's the sneakiest Redemptive Death possible. He's killed by Thanos while trying to doublecross him.

So, is this Thanos any good as a villain? Can't say I like the sound of him so far. Credit where credit is due, Thanos is pretty darn great. Villain fanboys often tend to go for the flashy bad guys, the Beagle Boy kind who revel in their villainy. But this time, they got hyped over a more complex villain, and with reason. The script-writers, directors and not least Josh Brolin who motion-capture-acted the "Mad Titan" expertly should all be lauded for making something interesting of him. Thanos's plan is perfectly bonkers – he wants to wipe out half of everything living in the universe – but the film sells you on the idea that he thinks he is doing the right thing. Obsessed with concerns over over-population since the fall of his own planet, he harbours the extreme-Malthusian belief that the half of the universe's population that remains will flourish once he's done his bit. (Mind you, Malthusians want to curb procreation in order to handle over-population: they're killjoys, not killers.) Thanos is even prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve his goal. Of all the misguided idealists in the Marvel Universe, he's literally the big one.

But you don't tend to fancy murderous idealists. That's right, I don't fancy him. But I am impressed. And I like Ebony Maw, his devoted follower, very much the Saint-Just to his Robespierre.

Overall impression: Like Thanos, this movie is big and awe-inspiring. Despite its length, I was at the edge of my seat during the whole thing, and that's in spite of the fact that I knew how things would pan out (it's been years since the film aired, and I haven't tried to avoid spoilers as I thought I'd never see it anyway). However, you really have to have seen most of the other Marvel films in order to make any kind of sense of it. It presupposes that you know all the characters already and can't wait to see them fighting someone almost impossible to defeat. One for the fans.

The Ant-Man and The Wasp

Loki still dead? This movie takes place briefly before and to some extent during Infinity War, but... yeah, he's not in it.

So who are the villains? Anything interesting? The main antagonist in this film, the "Ghost", is hardly a villain at all – she only wants to cure a horrible condition she contracted as a result of some advanced quantum-portal-nonsense experiments. The problem, as with the comic side villain from the South, is that it would have been very easy to level with them. The "Ghost" wants to be cured now – to which the answer would be "sure, hon, just wait until tomorrow when we've got my wife/mother out of the quantum realm". The Southern faux-gentleman wants to sell Hank Pym's mobile, shrinkable lab for a billion dollars (with a cut to him) now – to which the answer would be "that sounds like a great offer, give us a week to think about it while daddy extracts my mom from the quantum realm". But as the heroes are so unclear about why they only need a couple of hours more without interference, they need to contend with an awful lot of avoidable hassle.

Overall impression: Plotting isn't this film's strong point. There are many contrivances and plot holes. But like its predecessor Ant-Man this is a fun film with charming and likeable characters. If you discount the bleak mid-credit scene (which seemed a bit unnecessary – couldn't they have worked it into Endgame somehow?) it's the ideal light-hearted pick-me-up after the, er, intensity of Infinity War.

Captain Marvel

So, I can't help noticing that this film takes place in the Nineties. Before Infinity War. There is a guest appearance from a former Marvel villain, but not Loki – rather Ronan from the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

So, does he have any character development in this film? Nah, he's only there to have his cute blue butt kicked at the end.

Ah, well... Any other villains of note? In a movie containing shape-shifters and a heroine with amnesia, it's not always easy to know who the villains are... Or else it's really easy. What can I say? I knew of one of the film's twists beforehand, and from that it wasn't hard to unravel the rest. I don't want to give away too much, but overall the threats that Vers, aka Carol Danvers (it's not made entirely clear why she ends up with the moniker Captain Marvel) face are a little on the underwhelming side.

Overall impression: The problem with Captain Marvel is Captain Marvel herself. She is given little by way of personality, and what she has isn't very appealing; she comes accross as conceited and humourless. Things aren't helped by Brie Larson's curiously wooden performance. She doesn't really have any chemistry with any of the other characters, not even Nick Fury, whom she is supposed to care about (in a best-buddy kind of way, I'm almost sure). There are some very clunky "go feminism" scenes, which make me (as a woman) cringe. In one, a biker condescendingly tells Vers/Carol that she should try smiling. A minute later, she's stolen his bike. That's him told. I could see his point, though: I got really tired of Larson's mulish I'm-not-going-to-be-ingratiating look.

For all that, the film's not terrible. I enjoyed the Skrulls and their shape-shifting shenanigans, it's nice to see a younger, more mellow Nick Fury, and the kid who plays Carol's best friend's daughter is great. Also, in terms of preachiness, it doesn't hold a candle to the phase four TV series The Falcon and The Winter Soldier. They do try to "show, not tell" in Captain Marvel, they're just not very good at it. And it's a bit galling that Captain Marvel is so ridiculously over-powered that she can supposedly take down any of the other MCU heroes and heroines – the ones we actually like.

Avengers: Endgame

I guess Loki isn't in this, as he's really dead this time... Actually, he does make a couple of brief appearances as his former, unreformed self –  there's time travel involved, you see.

Ah, that's something I guess. And Thanos is back, which is... good? It has to be said, he's not a patch on Infinity War Thanos. The Avengers end up being pitched against a Thanos from the past, who somewhere along the way realises that half of the universe will never thank him if he rids them of the other half, even if it does mean more natural resources and stuff. But the plan he comes up with instead is so obviously mad and wrong, even compared to the old one, that the complexity is lost.

So, are you saying they didn't stick the landing? No, they did stick the landing. But I have to admit this film belongs to the heroes rather than the villains. It is overlong, and I have no clue how the time travel actually works in this film. Apparently you can't change the past, but Steve kind of does it anyway at the end? And how can fighting and killing people from the past not have any impact on the timeline? I was thoroughly confused. Nevertheless, there are thrilling action scenes, sweet character moments and a moving, satisfying finale, even though sacrifices are made on the way. Even Captain Marvel becomes more bearable.

But do I really have to see all these movies just to understand what's going on in Loki the series? Honestly? No. If you watch the Thor movies and the first Avengers film you will probably be able to follow it fine, though the exact circumstances of Loki's death and why this earlier version of him has fallen foul of a sort of time police will be a bit of a mystery. However, if you appreciate the nerdiness of Loki the series, you will probably quite like the Marvel movies as well. Give it a go. But if you say to yourself after the first Avengers movie "what a load of rubbish", then you'll know it's not for you.          

A not-quite-as-ignorant-anymore villain-lover's guide to Marvel - Phase Three A (Civil War to Black Panther)

Yeah, I'm sorry I can't do all of phase three in one go – but it's nine films! Including some pretty important ones I might want to go further into. So I'll save the two big ones, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame (along with a couple of others) until next time. 

Captain America: Civil War

So I'm catching on by now... A Captain America movie means no Loki, right? Right. Though this is only nominally a Captain America movie. It's essentially an Avengers movie minus Thor and the Hulk who are off having adventures elsewhere.

OK, so what do we have on the villain front? Maybe I was charmed by the fact that we finally had a villain who could speak flawless German, but I did have some time for Daniel Brühl's understated Zemo. He is bright and good at coming up with complicated schemes. The problem is his motive. It's a great motive for hating someone – he lost his family when Ultron was raging around in the fictional, much-tried country of Sokovia – just not the Avengers. They were trying to save as many Sokovian civilians as possible, as well as the rest of the world, and if they didn't manage to rescue everyone it's hardly their fault but the evil robot's. That Zemo doesn't realise this, but is trying to split up the elite team who was fighting the Big Bad who killed his family, is what prevents him from being a great villain.

Overall impression: The problem with the villain's motive is the problem with the whole film. The premise which leads the heroes to fall out in the first place – should they or should they not submit to scrutiny by an independent body such as the UN (not perhaps overly famous for its efficiency) – feels forced. The idealisation of vigilantism is one of my problems with the superhero genre, yet I can't really fault the Avengers here: they only tend to deal with oversized threats that are plainly too much for the police or military, such as power-hungry Asgardians, AI beings bent on destruction etc. We don't see them being reckless with civilian lives, either: Civil War shows the first clear case of an Avenger "killing the patient" i.e. straight up causing civilian casualties, and it shakes her. Yet Tony Stark feels guilty when a grieving mother – much like Zemo – blames him for her boy's death in Sokovia. Stop feeling guilty about Sokovia already!

Apart from the shaky premise, this is good action fun with some dark undertones. Though I imagine fanboys who at some point have set their hero action figures against each other will enjoy it most of all.

Doctor Strange

Magic, huh? You know who else can do magic? Like illusions and stuff? What, are you hoping for a Once Upon A Time crossover now?

Chance would be a fine thing... No, I mean Loki! You're not that obsessed with Loki. Isn't this framing device getting old? Anyway, he's not in this movie.

So who are the villains, then? Any good? Good news: the main antagonist is Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius (yes, I checked IMDB). Bad news: once again, someone forgot to write an actual part for him. All right, it's not quite as bad as in Casino Royale. His wish for eternal life is easy to understand, though allying himself with a powerful being from the Dark Dimension (yes, it's actually called that) in order to bring it about isn't the smartest move. Once again we see misguided idealism at work: Kaecilius and his followers truly believe that everything will be great if the Earth surrenders itself to the tender mercies of Dark Dimension overlord Dormammu. Which is not the case, no.

Overall impression: I was looking forward to this one, and it's always nice to see Benedict Cumberbatch, though hearing him speak in an American accent is... strange. But I have to admit, this movie felt a bit formulaic storywise. We've already had the arrogant protagonist who has to learn humility the hard way and finally uses his talents for the Greater Good. In many ways, Doctor Strange is just wizard Iron Man, only not as funny. Also, adding magic to all the other crazy stuff going on in the Marvel world is a bit of a strain. But the acting is good and there are some cool CGI effects.

Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2

It's in space, but I've stopped hoping... Be patient – Loki will be in the next film on the list.

So, any memorable villains? Common wisdom dictates that Marvel didn't offer much in the way of villains – excepting Loki – until now, when it starts to get good. And I have to admit that common wisdom is right. The setup for the film is that Peter Quill is united with his long-lost, unknown father, who turns out to be an ultrapowerful celestial called Ego, played by a Kurt Russell shining with bonhomie. The whole Guardian gang is invited back to Ego's home, and Peter and Ego settle down for some serious father-son bonding. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that Ego is the villain: the question is more what he has in mind, and what it will take to turn a besotted Peter (who has already lost a parent) against him.

Overall impression: I have a soft spot for the zany sci-fi feel of the Guardians films. The Guardians should be annoying but somehow aren't. The depressing beginning of the first Guardians film really pays off in my case: I'm constantly rooting for Peter Quill and get a little upset when shade is thrown at him (which happens quite a lot). With a charismatic villain present, this movie – in my view – is even more enjoyable than the first one. I chuckle whenever I think of "I know it sounds bad..."

Thor: Ragnarok

Finally! Yes, there is plenty of Loki in this film, and as in Thor: The Dark World, the main villain is to be found elsewhere whereas he is the "wild card".

So any other good villains? Hela, Thor's and Loki's sister (though not by blood in the latter case), is a splendid villainess played with great panache by Cate Blanchett. There's also the Grandmaster, the hedonistic ruler of a faraway planet where Thor is forced to become a gladiator, but he is more of a side antagonist than a villain. 

What, Hela, Loki's sister? You mean Hel, Loki's daughter, surely? Nope. I already told you, Marvel plays fast and loose with Viking mythology. The only thing reminiscent of the myth is that the Fenris wolf (so cute) is present. Also, I don't recall the original Ragnarök having anything to do with a demonic-looking creature called Surtur.

Overall impression: This movie is a full-blown comedy, in spite of the ominous title. Hela is fun. The Grandmaster is fun. Thor and Loki squabbling and occasionally bonding is a joy to watch. I can understand why some find the tone shift from the first Thor movie, which was quite serious, jarring. But this is my kind of light entertainment.

Black Panther

OK, obviously not a Loki film... So what else do we have? You said things were getting good villain-wise? Yes, indeed. The villains in this movie are undoubtedly strong, though not exactly something for someone like me to swoon over. The lesser villain, who gets defeated about half-way through the film, Ulysses Klaue, is played by Andy Serkis in his usual energetic, way-out-there villain style. Think Serkis as Rigaud in Little Dorrit, but possibly even crazier. The main villain, nicknamed Killmonger, is something completely different: he is quite complex and has a compelling private motive for resenting the hero T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, and his family. When T'Challa has an otherworldly chat with his dead father I thought it a bit unnecessary and Lion King-ish, but it sets the stage for a powerful scene where Killmonger communes with his dead dad, not in some misty panther-strewn savannah form of the ancestral plane but in their old shabby apartment back in the US.

Aw, a leader of the pack villain... You love those. So what's the problem? Killmonger doesn't only have a personal motive, but a political one as well.

Ah, politics. Yep – it's not spelled out in so many words, but I know what he means we he talks about arming "the oppressed" against "the oppressors". I found it a pity to mix politics into Killmonger's motivation, what with the personal reasons being quite enough, but it does raise the stakes, and forms a contrast against T'Challa's wish (as voiced in front of the UN in the mid-credit scene) to unite the world's people in "one tribe". (Twenty years ago or so I would have scoffed at such talk and called it well-meaning waffle, but nowadays I'm quite grateful for a bit of one-tribe-speechmaking.)

Overall impression: This movie was a smash hit at the box office, so it's clearly many people's cup of tea. For my part, I have to admit I found it a bit slow; I don't think it's a film I'll revisit in a hurry. T'Challa is underwritten as a character – it's as if the scriptwriters were afraid of giving him any flaws – but the late Chadwick Boseman gives him quiet likeability, and his scenes with Letitia Wright as T'Challa's tech-savvy, scene-stealing little sister Shuri are really funny and sweet. So the hero's all right, but his love interest is a boring goody-two-shoes (it would have been more fun to see someone so nice and idealistic as T'Challa teamed up with a bad girl). The premise of a technologically super-advanced African country which has to decide whether to reveal its secrets to the world is quite interesting, but would they really decide on who becomes their leader with trial by combat? And what exactly is CIA agent Ross's role? There's no need to include Martin Freeman just to keep us whiteys happy. Just don't call me an oppressor, and I'm good.