Orange is the New White (Supremacist)

It has been a struggle writing this entry, not just because every other day has brought fresh insanity from Trump and his team of twisted, totalitarian turd wombles, currently driving the US headlong towards the 19th century, but also because that is just one branch of the ugly tree slapping our species around the face as we tumble towards its roots.

Whether it be extremists in the East butchering their fellow man and kidnapping children to sell as sex slaves, or wealthy scumbags in the West praying on the ignorance and fears of the unwashed masses to secure themselves a bit more power and a lot more cash, at the expense of the very people raising them to their thrones, it's all too easy to look at the current state of the world and despair.

The Trump age of Twattishness began before he'd even taken office, as he seemed to be back-tracking on a number of pre-election promises regarding the arrest of Hilary Clinton, the abolition of the Affordable Care Act - or 'Obamacare', for those seemingly unaware they're the same thing - his totally-not-a-Muslim-ban and his border wall.  While this apparent softening was reassuring to those panicked by his impending presidency, it did not sit well with the Kla- sorry, clans of ignorant hick halfwits who'd voted for him on the back of those pledges.

But fear not, blinkered bigots of backwater America!  No sooner was his little hand off the Bible than it was clamped to the pussy of Lady Liberty, as he spewed forth such isolationist rhetoric that had not been heard since a greasy little mono-bollocked Charlie Chaplin impersonator had waxed lyrical on the benefits of inbreeding.

And then, without even pausing for the weekend, he was off with his pen, scrawling over hastily compiled, clumsily written, insulting, ill-thought-out and downright childish literature, like Stephanie Meyer at a book signing.

Yes, all that hateful crap he said he'd do, then sorta acted like maybe he'd put a bit more thought into, he went ahead and did anyway.

Except for the Hilary thing, of course.  Pre-election, Trump's idea of high treason was using an unsecured email account.  Post-election, it's questioning the legality and constitutionality of a targeted immigration ban.

Not that it is a Muslim ban!

All it is is a temporary restriction on people from certain (predominantly Muslim) countries 

(that Trump doesn't have business investments in), with a...softer focus on those who are...

not of those countries' predominant (Muslim) faith...

See?  Totally not a Muslim ban!

The big overarching reason behind all of this nonsense appears to be his chosen sources of information, but that in itself brings up a question: does Trump genuinely believe this crap (as his ever-more beleaguered press secretary suggests), or is he looking to those for excuses for everything he's doing?

Part of me wishes it was the latter because, whatever his endgame is - how ever nefarious and self-serving - at least he'd be in some kind of control.

Unfortunately, I suspect the former is far more likely: that the President of the United States is an ignorant, unstable, small-minded halfwit believing everything Steven Bannon whispers in his ear between thrusts.

Meanwhile, a few miles due east, our own woefully under-qualified and un-democratically elected head of government was continuing the age-old tradition of the Tory leader skirting difficult questions by repeating the same empty, noncommittal rhetoric until the questioner gets bored and moves on.

In her defence, her focus was possibly elsewhere; most likely thinking of ways to suck up to little Donald while subtly staying out of groping range.

Her visit was as wretched as anyone could have predicted, with her not only avoiding any topic of conversation that might ruffle his hairpiece, but slavering over him like a cheerleader over a quarterback.

However, while May was keen to avoid any mention of immigration or torture (probably because they're not entirely at odds (at least when it come to the former)), the Beeb's Laura Kuenssberg was not so reticent.

Compare May's grovelling, too, to the responses of Angela Merkel, François Hollande and a number of other EU leaders, as well as Chinese State Media and even the Speaker of the House of Commons, and I'm left wondering - as I have before - is this really the best we can do?

A spineless, witless, clueless, feckless, directionless, blithering, flapping, vapid, hypocritical cretin on one side of the Atlantic, and a weak-willed, thin-skinned, perverted, angry, disrespectful, petty, greedy, small-minded, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, hypocritical, cheap-wigged varnished turd on the other?

Xi Jinping must be laughing his knackers off at two of the biggest economies in the western hemisphere being led by a pair with less combined human worth than the stuff the slime at the bottom of the barrel scrapes off its brogues.

Sadly, when one looks at the opposition, the answer appears to be 'yes'.

When the Shadow Cabinet quit in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, I thought it was not only a pathetic and desperate ploy by a bunch of Blairites to return the party to the ideals of 10 years ago (that have seen them pummelled in two General Elections), but a disgusting betrayal of both their supporters who'd overwhelmingly put Corbyn there in the first place, and the British people as a whole by crippling any opposition to the government when we needed it most.

This time, however, I believe Corbyn is the one on the wrong side of the fence.  Despite the government's repeated claims that they're exercising the 'will of the people', who voted with their 'eyes wide open', the Leave campaign won by the narrowest of margins on the back of a torrent of lies.  How many now lament their vote (or lack thereof)?

Forcing your MPs to vote a certain way for fear of looking out of touch, or upsetting your base, is pathetic, divisive and destructive, and very much not the will of the people.

Not to mention pointless.  Despite all the talk of blocks and oversight and amendments, and after a fight in the courts to give Parliament a say on the bill, it was passed without a single change, opening the door for May to handle Brexit how ever she sees fit.

Good job, Jezza.

So where do we turn in this time of political strife, when the leaders of two of the most significant powers in the western world are as beneficial as diarrhoea at rush-hour?  Many look to this handsome devil:

The one on the left

And it's easy to see why: he's young, handsome and erudite; an advocate for women's and LGBTQ rights; outspoken on environmental issues and those affecting indigenous people...

Right?

Well, about that... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Makes Major Decisions for Canadian Pipeline Approvals 

But let's look on the bright side... 

Um...

Ooh! The Lego Batman Movie was good!

RIP Carrie Fisher

I've always had a thing for heroines.  When I was growing up, male heroes were everywhere: He-Man, Action Man, Transformers, Star Wars, Superman.  Every franchise was built around its male heroes.

As a result, the heroes of every franchise bored the piss out of me.  They were great for what they were, and made for some awesome toys and occasionally aspirational figures, but I found them all narratively tedious.

I was instead fascinated by the female equivalents / members of the male-dominated teams: She-Ra, Arcee, Supergirl, Cheetara.  And that was all before I was old enough to see them as anything other than arse-kicking heroes.

Nor was this strictly down to their rarity: female-led stories have always had something more to them.  While Hercules was about some noble buff dude punch bad-guys and throwing them around like unconvincing rag-dolls, Xena was about a violent warrior maiden looking to atone, and taking on a sidekick who represented those she was desperate to view her in a different light.

I have never been so eager to read a comic as when I first discovered X-23.  And they all do pretty much the same thing, but just look at how a-typical Van Helsing or the Beaumont boys are compared to the complexity of Buffy.

And this love of the heroine can be traced right back to Princess Leia.  A supposed damsel-in-distress, the first thing she does when being 'rescued' is insult one of her assumed captors, take the piss out of her "heroes'" poor excuse for a plan, then save them all herself, while proving a better shot than the experienced smuggler, the child of prophecy, and an entire battalion of empirical troopers.  

Think about that: the Empire tortures her to discover the location of the rebels' base, and she resists; they threaten her entire planet, and she sends them to the wrong location; she sees her entire planet - including her mother and father - blown to smithereens, and the moment a pair of blundering wannbes get her out of her cell, she assumes command, questions one's ability to look after himself, and casually refers to a 7ft roaring beast with a high-powered crossbow as a 'walking carpet'.

One of her heroes sees his mentor - an old hermit he was casually acquainted with - sacrifice himself, and despite all Leia's been through, *she's* the one comforting *him*!  When she should have been: "Bitch, I've just lost my family, my people and my entire fucking planet! Grow a pair and go shoot some Tie Fighters!"

She outwits the Empire's highest ranks, and without pausing for a much-deserved nap after all she's already been through, she takes command of the rebellion and helps lead them to a decisive victory.

AND THAT'S JUST IN THE FIRST FILM!

By the time of episode VII, her son's turned to the dark side, her husband's pissed off to look for his ship, her brother - the JEDI MASTER - has disappeared because it's all too much to handle, and she's COMMANDING A NEW REBELLION AGAINST AN ORDER ARISEN FROM THE FALLEN EMPIRE, LED BY HER OWN HOMICIDAL OFFSPRING!

And only someone like Carrie Fisher could have brought that to life.  Only someone with that vivacity, that self-assurance, that strength and certainty of character.

Though to define her by that character is to undermine who she really was: an author; an activist; a paragon for equality.  She was the go-to script-doctor for many of Hollywood's big-name screenwriters.  She was an avatar for facing and owning one's emotional demons and sexual identity, and for not being defined by any of it.

Carrie Fisher was a true great of Hollywood and beyond, and a sad loss to us all.

That's no Mufasa

For me, one of the most surprising things about Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - which fills the gap between Episodes III and IV - is that there is so much to spoil, so I will say right off the bat that there will be none of those shenanigans going on here (those who spoil should have their fingers removed and mouths sewn shut).

Another big surprise was how both like and unlike Star Wars it felt.  There's no bombastic John Williams opener, no scrolling text, and barely a Jedi in sight.  This is not a hero's journey from simple every-man ignorant of his destiny, to kick-arse battle-mage saving the galaxy: it's a far more intimate tale about a plucky band of rebels coming together and risking it all for what they know is right.

And, sweet salivating monkey-nuts, does that allow it to bring the feels.

Star Wars has always had its moments in that regard, but because everything's so big, and the characters, while not simply 2-dimensional caricatures (in IV-VII at least), are nevertheless broad (gung-ho rogue; boisterous princess; farm-boy with a dream and a destiny), it's difficult to relate to everything on a personal level.

In Rogue One, the characters feel more grounded; more real.  When they laugh and cry and throw a tantrum, it has significance because the reasons for those reactions are often personal to the characters, rather than funny thing was said so everyone laughs, or bad thing happens so everyone cries.

Even the main bad-guy has nuance. Not that he ever waivers in his convictions, but unlike Tarkin or Palpatine, he does show fear and uncertainty - even desperation - as well as an arrogant wit.

Paradoxically, however, the main issues I have with the film also stem from the characters.  This being a stand-alone with an ensemble cast of newbies to the series, certain things feel rushed or underdeveloped.  Why was that person a prisoner?  How did these two meet?  Why's he such a mess?  Every one has a history that is only hinted at, and it makes me wish that, rather than a single film, the studio had followed through on that long-promised live-action TV show, with this as the template.

Fortunately, the performances are strong enough that, even without their histories being fleshed out, the characters are still well-rounded and interesting; the stand-outs being Alan Tudyk's K-2 - a hilariously sociopathic droid - and Donnie Yen's Chirrut Îmwe - an admittedly clichéd, but still awesome wise old blind badass, with a lighthearted humour I wouldn't have expected from the usually stoic Yen.

If there's one weakness - and I can't believe I'm saying this - it's James Earl Jones.  It's no secret that Darth Vader makes an appearance, but the appearance he makes is...weird.  The voice sounds like an impersonator trying too hard, the suit looks ill-fitting - as if made by a cosplayer in a hurry - and the physical performance is far too fluid, lacking David Prowse's almost robotic steadiness and menace.  Even the CGI face-mapping of certain characters is more convincing.

And he makes a pun!  What in the name of holy smegma is Darth Vader doing making a pun?! 

He does get a little redemption later on, but his main scene is an awkward one that simply does not work.

Of course, this being a Star Wars film, we're not just here for strong characters in a great story, and when it comes to outer space shooty epicness and Storm Troopers being used as cross-eyed cannon-fodder, Rogue One delivers in spades, with a particular moment with a pair of Star Destroyers being up there among the entire saga's all-time greats.  Gareth Edwards may have bored us all gormless with Godzilla, but he did at least prove that he could do grand-scale action when (finally) called upon to do so, and that eye for the epic set-piece is exercised with aplomb against the backdrop of space.

Quick side note: due to issues with Cineworld's projector, I got to see this

in IMAX 2D, which was awesome!

In terms of where the film as a whole stands within the Star Wars ranks, I find that difficult to gauge.  As I said, this is a different type of film to the main saga, and it's fitting that it's titled A Star Wars Story rather than Star Wars episode III.V.  And I also hesitate to rank it along side Empire Strikes Back as others have done, as I don't see this achieving that level of classic status; nor did it enjoy so many iconic, unforgettable moments.  That said, it is certainly on a par with The Force Awakens in terms being both new and feeling like a strong continuation of the saga.  It too outshines the prequels on every level (including its continuity), and would make a fitting start to any Star Wars marathon.

**UPDATE**

I follow a lot of reviewers with diverse opinions, and no film has shown that more than Rogue One; and in a surprising way. Those I'd expect to love it were underwhelmed (one downright devastated), and others I'd expect to be more critical have actually found far more to love.

Because of the way this film is put together, and its story is told, it lives and dies by its characters: those who were put off by the thinness of their backstories, or found them dull or one-note, seem to have been bored by the film as a whole, while others (like me) who could look past the admittedly thin back-stories, and could engage with the characters through the actors' performances (which I personally found universally fantastic (Donnie Yen especially)) loved the film, sometime to a near-Empire-Strikes-Back degree.

The opening act is rushed, every character could have done with more fleshing out (I still feel like this would have made a better mini-series than a film), and that first Darth Vader scene was terrible, but I love the cast, I love the story, the action was phenomenal and the climax had me physically shaking.

Feverishly Elective: US Edition

Hoist the bunting, pop the champers and crank up Kool and the Gang: the US election is finally coming to an end!

And what a tragic indictment it has been of what US politics has become.

I've mostly avoided writing about his election because, really, what's to say?  Clinton is your typical Wall Street shill, as entrenched in the politics of greed as anyone else in Washington, but at least she's not Donald-Smegging-Trump!

Trump is not only every bit the typical Wall Street shill Hillary is, despite protests to the contrary (how else is he going to hold on to what little fortune he has left?), he's a sad, thin-skinned, neurotic, spineless, witless, crooked, cowardly, racist, misogynist hypocrite, who has survived his myriad failed business ventures through tax evasion and his sole talent of selling his own name.

And that's really all there is to it: one candidate who isn't great, and one candidate so pathetic, his own party have abandoned him.

So how has this even become a race?

Many have been citing what happened in the summer with the Brexit vote, suggesting people are voting against the status quo because of how ineffectual and unrepresentative it has become.  'Business as usual' hasn't been working for a while, so regardless of what the anti-establishment vote is, at least it's anti-establishment.

Unfortunately, much like the Brexit vote, this misguided 'protest' hurts only those already let down by the establishment.  Okay, Brexit got rid of Cameron and Osborne, but their legacy is being carried on by their like-minded peers, and the only change on the horizon is that lot gaining unfettered control of our rights, while having to think up new ways of directing funds into the pockets of them and theirs.

By the same token, Trump in the White House is going to in no way upset the status quo.  Perhaps if he had any savvy about him, he could enact some genuine change (though the change he'd enact is, in itself, a troubling prospect), but the reality is he's nothing but a spoiled, petulant child, wanting a go at being the big boss.  Handing him the presidency would be equivalent to handing him a toy phone and telling him the cow, sheep and chicken at the other end are Congress, Fox News and the Pentagon.

"When cow says 'moo', you've enacted a bill!  Isn't little Trumpy-wumpy clever?"

Meanwhile, the Republicans in office can finally do whatever they like without the president keeping their scumbaggery in check.

Make no mistake, how ever many Republicans have come out against the hamster-haired tangerine, you'll see few willing to vote against him.  They'll call him a disgrace, and unrepresentative of the party, but at the end of the day, they'd rather be answering to a weak-willed ignoramus, mistaking their empty platitudes for loyalty, than one of their opposite number seeing through every vapid grin, and kicking them in the nuts till they do as they're told.

And so they trot out the usual batch of braggarts, buffoons and blustering cretins, whose political careers are long-past ruining, to mindlessly defend every moronic soundbite he comes out with, while the rest can try to claim the 'Country Before Party' moral high-ground in an attempt to save their own seat, while secretly hoping the majority of voters really are that gullible.

The sad thing is, Trump really was one of the best candidates the Republicans put forward.  Chris Christie is a fat, simpering nobody, so lacking in self-worth and future prospects, he was the ideal first sacrifice to be thrown on the Trump dumpster fire.  Debating Hillary, Marco Rubio would've come across as a scared little boy getting a spanking form mother.  Ben Carson is so befuddled and out-of-touch, he'll be in a nursing home by this time next year, trying to rally the political support of his apple purée.  The majority of Ted Cruz's supporters would think today better spent in church, praying to God for the win, rather than actually voting.  And by the time of the third primary debate, the rest had already become 'the rest'.

Ironically, much like Ron Paul before him, the only candidate who'd have stood any chance of drawing some liberal support away from the Democrats, and making this a fight of principals and policies, rather than personalities, was John Kasich; the one candidate too sensible for the party base to ever accept.

Despite fears of Trump bringing the apocalypse down upon us all, I see very little being changed by this election.  This time tomorrow, the US will prove to be either not quite as stupid as we thought they were, or that mentally-deficient little nation that was big in the '80s, but now spends its time getting fat, ranting about greatness and shouting at a wall.

Bay's Nostalgia Films Suck: Why I Care

Transformers is silly.

Not just the Bay films, or the shoddy attempts at more animated series, but the entire franchise is silly.  Christ, the animated movie was (and by some (including myself) still is) adored, but even that featured this!



Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was even worse!  Setting aside the fact their primary antagonist was a nasal hentai off-cut riding around in an '80's sex doll, with a pig, a rhino and Uncle Phil as his sidekicks, there were the musical specials, the live-action TV show, the second and third live-action movies...look, just watch this:


(or, for something far more in-depth, this)

The swaths of silliness that permeate these franchise and others - be it He-Man, GI Joe or the myriad comic-book franchises with adaptations old and recent - are often brought up in defence of some of the adaptations that spawn from them:

"You think Devastator's scrotum's bad, you should see the episode of the cartoon with the golden pond!"
"What do you mean the new Shredder's stupid?  Don't you remember Super-Shredder?"
"How can you think Duke in a super-suit's daft when the toys included a heavily-armed windsurfer?"

The argument being that, if we could put up with the weirdness of the source material and still love it, why is it such a big issue that they completely changed the Turtle's origins?

For me, the problem is one of potential.  The Transformers lore is rich and epic, and packed with some awesome characters, yet when given the go-ahead and budget to finally bring it all to life on the big-screen, we got a relatively small-scale, earth-bound shoot-out, focusing on a handful of tedious humans, and relegating the towering, warring robots to the background.  Where the cartoon gave us a transforming city, an underwater battle with robotic piranhas and a planet-devouring monster, Bay gave us Skids and Mudflap.

As for the Turtles, while the 2nd and 3rd live-action movies were pants, the first did a great job of not only bringing the characters to life, but of creating an atmosphere that settled nicely between the cartoon and the early comics.  The only real issue with it (aside from a spot of slow pacing) was technological restrictions: impressive as the costumes were at the time, they haven't aged well, and in retrospect, encumbered the ninja action.

To revisit the property with the benefit of today's technology could have resulted in something fun, fast-paced, and visually unique and spectacular.  Instead we got some generic rip-off of Amazing Spiderman (of all things), focusing on a handful of tedious humans, and relegating the weird-but-badass ninjas to the background.

The reception of these films is also a problem.  Bays Transformers films are crap, but because explosion-porn makes money, we're stuck with his take on the franchise for the foreseeable future.

On the flip-side, the last Turtles film bombed, and so we're due a reboot.  On the surface, that should be great news, but for all the problems with the films, they did at least get the Turtles right (love-or-hate visual design notwithstanding), but current Hollywood reasoning dictates that if a film doesn't do well, it's because everything about it was wrong, and the only way to save it is "gritty realism".

Just look at Superman Returns: a half-arsed attempt at recapturing the magic of the first two Christopher Reeves films it might have been, but for all its problems, Brandon Routh was an inspired casting choice, not only looking the part, but also able to give two distinct and convincing performances as both Clark Kent and Superman.

Contrast that with the dour, miserable, misguided Zack Snyder films, and poor Henry Cavil who is mostly unconvincing as either.

Okay, the gritty reboot thing worked for Batman following the horror of Joel Schumacher, but the reason it worked for Batman is because it's freakin' Batman!  A gritty reboot of Superman makes about as much sense as one for the Fantastic Four.

But I digress: the point of all this is, yes we still have the cartoons to watch; yes they had their silliness and spawned some utterly baffling off-shoots; yes there was a moment in our naive youth when it was just about acceptable to randomly have Vanilla Ice rapping about ninjas, but they had the opportunity to do something great!  To finally bring these memories from our childhood to life in such a way that was new and spectacular, while still paying homage to the best of what they were, eschewing all of the unnecessary baggage that had built up over the years.

And instead we got Bumble Bee pissing on a Fed, Devastator balls, a mech-suited Shredder, a crappy rip-off of a crappy reboot, Skids, Mudflap, Shia le Boufant, Megan Fox, Marky Mark and the Wooden Bunch, and Michael fucking Bay.

Doctor Standard

Another year, another Marvel origin movie.

And, I'm sorry to say, the old formula is showing its age: here's a snippet of your bad-guys; this is your good-guy with a lot to learn (boy-oh-boy, isn't he arrogant); here's his perfunctory love-interest; Look, Avengers Tower!  Eegads, drama!  Journey starts here, folks!  Ooh, this one's about this stuff... Training.  Struggle.  Conflict.  He's catching on... Midway fight!  Now he has purpose.  Now he's a badass!  Climax!  Ooh, sequel bait.

This being Avengers XIV: Quick, We Need Something New to Show! it's hardly surprising the strain is beginning to show  Even with the introduction of magic and the multi-verse, we're given the same old beats; the same old leaning toward style over substance; the same old stock characters for our hero to bounce dialogue off of.  And what's frustrating is they've already found new ways of tackling the origin story.  Guardians of the Galaxy got away with it through humour, a brand new setting, and being about a team rather than a singular hero.  And despite being about a team, the writing and performances were strong enough to convey the background and character of every player.  Even Ronan the Accuser - typical flash-in-the-pan bad-guy that he was - benefited from a memorable design and performance, and having his stoicism contrasted against the 'hero's' general silliness.

Ant-Man too, though it followed the more established formula, managed to stand out by being on a much smaller, more intimate scale.

Unfortunately, Doctor Strange feels a lot like a return to the old.  Mads Mikkelsen does what he can with the villain, but we see so little of him, he joins Yellowjacket, Iron-Monger and Malekith (remember him?) in the category of, 'Well, they were knida interesting... Moving on.'

Similarly, Rachel McAdams gets to be little more than space-filler.  There's chemistry; he rejects her; he needs her; they reconcile; she's gone.  They do change things up slightly by not quite having the two get together (as if to say 'See, she's not really a love-interest! Aren't we original?'), but you could still replace her with Jane Foster and not notice the difference.

The action is also disappointing.  Not that it's not imaginative and well executed, but it's shot so poorly.  Scott Derrickson seems to have come from the same school of action directing as Paul Greengrass and the Russo brothers, thinking shoving the camera in an actor's ear and swishing it from side to side makes for an immersive set-piece, rather than a confusing blur of colourful nonsense.  And it isn't helped by an over-reliance on CGI sets and models.  Okay, when you're doing the Inception building-folding thing with an entire city, practical effects aren't really an option, but having a pair of actors brawl in an actually-rotating corridor was still far more impressive-looking than some green-screen wire-work and bandy-armed character models.

It also doesn't help that the action peaked with a mid-film confrontation, while the climactic fight was a much more brief, small-scale and uninteresting affair (and aesthetically reminiscent of Suicide Squad).

And though the final final face-off was a genuinely cool idea, the design of Dormammu, who should look something like this...

...was pants.

All that said, however, it's still good.

It's an almost frustrating trend with Marvel that even their somewhat throw-away films have plenty about them to enjoy, whether it be the action of Incredible Hulk or Iron-Man 2, or the character interaction and universe development of Thor: The Dark World.  Even Age of Ultron, despite more-or-less being a retread of The Avengers, was packed with enough awesome that it didn't matter.

Doctor Strange, despite being part of the MCU, could probably be most closely compared to Green Lantern in terms of structure and unoriginality.  But while Green Lantern lacked any semblance of effort, depth or excitement, Doctor Strange is what happens when you do all that same stuff (for the most part) well.  The cast are invested, the action (what we can see of it) is imaginative and the writing's sharp.

As a rich, arrogant, goatee-wearing genius at the pinnacle of his field, it would be easy to shrug Stephen Strange off as a Tony Stark clone, but the similarities are superficial at worst, and Benedict Cumberbatch covers the journey from top-of-his-game to despair, to out-of-his-depth, to getting-the-hang-of-things comfortably, while also delivering on the humour and action.  If there's one chink in his armour it's the accent.  Hugh Laurie's in House may have taken some getting used, but at least it was consistent, and I otherwise can't think of a single example of an English actor struggling with an American accent.  Cumberbatch's goes from passable to jarring, and even his weapons-grade cheek-bones couldn't distract from it.

As mentioned, Mikkelsen and McAdams are given very little to do, but they do it well, with both given a solid minute-and-a-half each to show some emotional depth, and even a couple of comedic moments.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is also a little short-changed, but he brings gravitas to what could have been a token side-kick, and offers just enough to hint at Mordo's inevitable (if you've read the comics) arc.

The biggest surprise for me was Tilda Swinton.  Obviously she gives a good performance - she's one of those actors who apparently can't do otherwise - but I was among those who cried foul at the casting of a white actor as an Asian character.  I'm not going to go into the whole white-washing debate here - Hollywood has a problem and it knows it does - but given the already lacking diversity among its heroes, this felt like a missed opportunity for Marvel to (at least in part) redress the balance.  However, in a film so lacking in originality, there was something refreshing in the wise old sage being a (more or less) quite ordinary white English woman.  It would have been easy to make the character the typical Dali Lama knock-off - all wisdom and enlightenment, with a touch of wise old wit - but instead The Ancient One is flawed, uncertain, occasionally vulnerable, and is shown to be mostly just doing their best.  That's not to say the character shows all that because she's a woman, or that an older male or female Asian actor couldn't have portrayed all those things, but the character's gender and ethnicity helped subvert expectations and add something new.  On top of that, Swinton is also given the opportunity to do a bit of arse-kicking, and managed that with aplomb.

I still feel they could've found a happy middle-ground by casting an Asian actress, but it wasn't as embarrassingly tenuous as I expected it to be.

Still, strong as the rest of the cast is, no-one steals a scene quite like Strange's cape - it reminded me of Carpet from Aladdin -  and if there isn't at least one shot of it flirting with Thor's cape when the two inevitably meet, I'll be disappointed.

So, in summary, it's all business as usual for another MCU origin: strong cast playing mostly filler characters, a strong hero, strong action, and some interesting universe building.

Lukewarm Cage

Hmm...

I find myself overall underwhelmed by Luke Cage: great characters in a dull story, with boring action and an at-times jarringly lazy script.

At one point a character is called through a police line to be told 'You should stay back'... :/

The supporting cast are great: diverse, unique, relatable and/or understandable. The bad-guys (and there are a few) are mostly nuanced, and with arcs, while the female good-guys are assertive, interesting and never in the damsel-in-distress role (one does need saving at one point, but it doesn't really count).

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Luke himself. Unlike the supporting cast - and more notably, unlike Matt Murdock and Jessica Jones before him - there's no agency about him. Everything he does he has to be pushed and prodded into doing (with the exception of a quick heist he does for the lols). He crumbles under the mildest pressure, shows little wit or imagination, and too often suffers from momentary idiocy syndrome when the plot requires him to.

At one point, he's about to pack up and leave town because of a mild threat, is told off for being a bitch by one of the series' intelligent characters, and decides, 'Oh, okay, guess I'll stay then'.

The action, when it happens, consists almost exclusively of him walking into a hail of bullets and throwing people around like a Kevlar Mr. T, and the one time we do get a fist-fight, it consists of the two characters trading blows like they're taking turns on a heavy-bag, while the crowd chants as if they're watching a crap Rocky knock-off.

It does have its moments (though they mostly come when Luke's off screen), and there is a polemic through-line reflecting the state of American politics and race-relations, but everything seems short-changed.

The first few episode hint at a character's racism, but that's forgotten before we're halfway through, it briefly tries its hand at being a police procedural, but the mystery is limp and quickly given up on, and the good ideas it does stick with tend to crop up in visual metaphor throughout the series, but are never explored in any depth.

There are good ideas beneath the surface, and the cast for the most part (particularly the bad-guys) are engaging, but this is easily the weakest of the MTVU so far.