The other night, I went out with some coworkers to catch a showing of Captain Marvel. We're all geeks. We revel in it. We were excited to finally see it.
However, it was different than other films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Not in a bad way, mind you. Just... different.
The acting was spot on. Brie Larson is an amazing Vers/Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel. She's tough, she's believable, she's a great hero. I can't wait to see more of her. I've been a fan of Larson since 21 Jump Street and was very happy to hear of her casting in this film.
Seeing CGI-age reduced versions of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Clark Gregg as Phil Coulson was awesome. Although I admit that Gregg's CGI self was a bit rough. You know how they complained about Carrie Fisher's CGI self in Rogue One (C'mon! That's not a spoiler anymore! Movie is 2.5 years old.)? Well, this one was much softer. Sometimes truly fake looking. I think that has everything to do with less source material from which to build his likeness. SLJ, on the other hand, has been acting so long that they probably had more reference material than they could shake a stick at to develop his image.
The action was good when it kicked in, but the pacing, overall, was slower than other MCU films. At least that's how I felt. I could be completely wrong.
I was also surprised by several of the characters who appeared in the movie. I won't spoil it, don't worry.
If you're on the fence about seeing this movie, I think you should make the leap. It's a very well done film and worth the in-theater viewing. I don't, however, believe it needs to be seen in 3D or IMAX. Not that I saw it in either, but I cannot imagine it would benefit from those technologies. I did see it in this weird Dolby immersive sort of get up where the seats rumbled and other unnecessary crap. Whatever. It did nothing but make me need to go to the bathroom that much sooner.
I'll let you in on a little secret... I knew absolutely nothing about the character of Captain Marvel before seeing this film. I'd gleaned a few nuggets here and there, but I've never read a comic or did any real research online. I knew the name Carol Danvers but I think that's because my very first online friend when I first got into blogging called herself "Carol Danvers." It wasn't until many years later I realized that was a superhero's alter ego and not her actual name. Or... was it???
If you are going and would like to prepare a bit, I might suggest another (first?) viewing of both Captain America: The First Avenger and The Guardians of the Galaxy, vol. 1. Not 100% necessary, but they would help a little bit.
If you've seen it, what did you think?
Spoiler Zone: You've been warned.
If you have a bit more insight into the character than I do and can address this concern, please do...
I feel like this movie has messed up the timeline of the Tesseract in the MCU. I could be wrong.
It was found by Red Skull in some underground vault and fought over with Captain America. Then it burned a hole in the hull of the flying wing during Cap and Skull's final fight in CA:TFA. Then it's recovered by Howard Stark. Something happens that it winds up in the hands of Dr. Wendy Lawson and moved aboard her space-bound lab where it's recovered by Captain Marvel and then presented -- by way of feline regurgitation -- to Nick Fury. It's stolen 15ish years later by Loki and then is recovered. I can't remember what happens, if anything, next. Then it's acquired and crushed into an Infinity Stone by Thanos. In Endgame, I'm sure we'll see its ultimate fate. My guess is Goose will swallow the whole Infinity Gauntlet.
Okay, now that I have it all typed out, maybe it's less a continuity issue than it is a lot of huge holes in its recent history. The continuity flows so far. We just need to see how it got to one or two places, don't we?