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.
