stefarbalova

Steve's character has always been about self-sacrifice, from the very first movie, from his very first heroic moment that led to his becoming Captain America. His whole life is defined by doing the right thing, fighting, and saving (and sacrificing if he has to in the process of saving). Don't get me wrong: I love him and I want him to get his happy ending. But the way it is done, it just feels wrong for the character. How did we get from the Steve of all previous movies, basically, to the Steve of the end of Endgame? He went back to Peggy and had a happy and peaceful life, stayed out of all major world events and injustices for 70 years. How is that the Captain America we know and love?! There is a major development arc missing from his storyline; the same way there was a major development arc missing to expalin how he finally got worthy of Mijolnir... As a whole, Steve's character was rather flat in Endgame. What did he learn? How did he change and grow? It's not that characters have to change and evolve in every episode of a series, but such development was strongly implied when it comes to Steve Rogers in Endgame, although we never see it on the screen. The whole episode starts with Tony's accusations--so that scene was just about Tony?? What was Steve's response?--and ends with his getting worthy... how? Hmmm, how did a storyline giving my favorite MCU character all he supposedly wanted leave me so empty and unmoved? I hope the Russo brothers will get to write the jumping-between-timelines explanation they have mentioned and explain what actually happened there...

Tony... After everything he's done for the world... After the glimpse we got into a happy retired family-man life for him... he deserved better. He had a plan, a family. He could have been happy without being a superhero from now on. Why couldn't he get that peace and happiness? He had grown enough over the course of the movies to finally be ready for it. I hope they'll bring him back.

Alternatively, they could have let Steve sacrifice (go back in time and take Tony's place, for example) and Tony live happily with his family... It would have been painful, dramatic, and in character. I don't buy the whole Tony-was-incapable-of-self-sacrifice "character development" argument, when he risked his life over and over again to save the world. Last time he did was in Infinity War when he was so disappointed Dr. Strange didn't let Thanos kill him.

Same with Natasha and Clint. What was the point of Nat sacrifing? If Clint had died, it would have been seen as character development and would have probably led to Natasha's further character development. Natasha's death didn't contribute to anyone's development. It was just a plot device. Therefore, just bring her back, too, and be done with character deaths in Endgame--it's a dumb trope, anyway...

A hero movie about a person who never did a heroic thing in his life. With a very specific target audience defined by the belief that alcohol, drugs and misogyny are ~forbidden pleasures~. A compensation tale of debauchery utterly lacking the promised cautionary element. The movie basically affirms all about the characters and their lifestyle. 'Cause it's all a harmless joke and so much fun, right?

Trigger warning for unacknowledged rape.

(More specifically, the movie absolutely makes you root for Belfort. Leonardo DiCaprio's superb acting turns him into a likable character. The rare moments of seeming irony are so far between and so ambiguously depicted that they needn't be acknowledged, unless you are writing the most generous review of a film undeserving of generosity. It's a fist-person POV story. Of course, Belfort likes himself. But so will we if the movie has anything to say about it. No victims make an appearance to tilt the movie's skewed valued system in the right direction. It's all about money, drugs and sex objects.)

The movie seems very promising in trailers and even when one starts watching it, almost until the end... when loose ends are left hanging and all of one's hopes for the movie's potential to communicate relevant and illuminating ideas collapse.

Moreover, their referring to many problematic notions and expressions remains unchecked. The use of "retard," "faggot" and "slut" is never explained or condemned. The idea of homosexuality as a sickness--is left unchecked, too; and so are the presentations of immigrant workers as thieves and of menial workers as stupid and not at the level of a college graduate. We are never told or shown how we are supposed to feel about any of these issues. And while the ambiguity of religion is largely okay in a world of various religious convictions (or lack thereof), I don't see how the rest of the topics can responsibly be treated as a matter of contention.

Yet, I loved Jonathan Groff's acting. I also loved the post-graduate attitude, which signified the place from which the emotional journey of the character began. I can really relate to it, too: the way your own struggles and successes make you feel superior to others. Which is why I was hoping David would learn to appreciate people and see them as his equals--which he partly, arguably, maybe did. But then, what was the point of religion? Why the ambiguity surrounding his sexuality? Did he have a problem with his sexual orientation?

I am just confused by the way the movie ended.

Although Jonathan Groff was brilliant, and C.O.G. was mostly well-written and filmed, I felt that it was cut short. Only 10 concluding minutes could clear a lot of my concerns, if included. But, as it stands, the movie is aesthetically, narratively, philosophically and socio-politically unresolved.