Not my observation, but Nick Fury
While there's rampant speculation around the internet that this means Fury has been a skrull for a long time, I think there might be a second explanation (excluding that it was just a random mistake, or that it's dodged by it being a sandwich and not toast, or that he tears a piece off of it)... Nick Fury and the missing skrull teamed up decades ago and have been working together, which is part of how Fury obtains an almost mythical legend as a spy and a reputation for knowing everything.
You know...just a little observation.,,
And Carol had kinda burned up the element of surprise.
Their was a whole bunch of surprise I'm sure.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really didnt like the MCU nova corps, but that's because I wanted a nova movie if I couldn't get a green lantern movie.
In fact, what I have seen of Carol thus far has me wondering about the similarity of their power sets. Hm.
We know from the Mind Stone being used by Hydra to empower Wanda and Pietro that the stones can be used (by mere human science!) to create super-people, and that the powers don't necessarily have to have anything to do with the Stone itself (the 'Mind' stone empowered a speedster, after all, and that's not a traditionally psychic power set).
It would have made sense for Xandarian science to be a step ahead of Hydra science, and for them to have been able to empower some Xandarian 'Protectors' (cue the appearance of Diamondhead, Syphon, Nova, etc.), and, eventually, a whole corps of Novas, using the stone they (briefly) had. If it worked anything like the tesseract, which Hydra was able to bleed almost unlimited power off of to fuel an entire arsenal of weapons, somewhere on Xandar could be thousands of glowing purple batteries, just waiting to be used, so that even losing the Power Stone itself to Thanos wouldn't necessarily end that program...
All I know is not all Skrulls are heroes. And not all Kree are dicks. The Shi'ar though are pretty arrogant though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Longish, but worth viewing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Longish, but worth viewing.
Saw that when it forst came out - it EXCELLENT! It should almost be required viewing for eveyone!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who don't like to click unidentified Youtube links:
What Lord Fyre is linking to is Screen Junkie News' excellent analysis of Captain Marvel's box office numbers and using hard numbers to debunk myths being spread by trolls.
I say this as someone who appears to have enjoyed the film less than many in this thread:
Those troll myths were never going to stand up in the face of cold, hard cash.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, but some folks are trying AWFULLY hard to keep believing those myths. They're coming up with some fascinating claims, like Disney spending millions of dollars to buy seat tickets to inflate sales reports for... reasons.
Not that this should probably be the thrust of this discussion more than the movie itself, but it's hard to avoid the subject on the Internet so may as well provide a good source of good old facts to counter with.
The movie ticked almost all my boxes with stuff I like to see in a movie. It won't for everyone. Hard part is being able to discuss the good and bad and varying opinions therein without a jerk trying to derail the conversation with whackjob conspiracy theories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
glad to see that screen junkies piece posted!
All I know is now I want more Carol Danvers...
All I know is now I want more Carol Danvers...
Given the MASSIVE success of the film, you will almost certainly get your wish. ;)
Did you also notice that in the new cycle of Avengers the core trio is:
Captain Marvel replaces Captain America - the Leader
Black Panther replaces Thor - the Mythic Figure
Dr. Strange replaces Iron Man - The Brash Genius
I'm not sure who the "lower" trio is:
The Brute - The Hulk - ??
The Spy - Black Widow - ??
?? - Hawkeye - ??
Lord,
I'm not sure that's accurate in terms of I think Thor will stay on since Chris Hemsworth isn't tired of doing Thor as much...
Lord,
I'm not sure that's accurate in terms of I think Thor will stay on since Chris Hemsworth isn't tired of doing Thor as much...
… not to mention that he has struggled outside of the MCU. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is now I want more Carol Danvers...Given the MASSIVE success of the film, you will almost certainly get your wish. ;)
Did you also notice that in the new cycle of Avengers the core trio is:
Captain Marvel replaces Captain America - the Leader
Black Panther replaces Thor - the Mythic Figure
Dr. Strange replaces Iron Man - The Brash GeniusI'm not sure who the "lower" trio is:
The Brute - The Hulk - ??
The Spy - Black Widow - ??
?? - Hawkeye - ??
I'd reverse Cap and Thor. Black Panther is the new improved Supersoldier peak fighter... even having them run side by side and outdistancing everyone else in IW....
and Carol is the cosmic power house that tear up an alien armada like a full powered Thor cutting loose.
Not my observation, but Nick Fury ** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
I fully agree that it's possible that it means nothing. The foundational question is whether the writers were aware of the other scene. If they were, than the two scenes combine to have meaning, and it has to be greater than just his changing preferences on the shape of bread. If they weren't, there are enough plausible outs that it means nothing.
Speculating on how coincidences have no meaning isn't fun though :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is now I want more Carol Danvers...Given the MASSIVE success of the film, you will almost certainly get your wish. ;)
Did you also notice that in the new cycle of Avengers the core trio is:
Captain Marvel replaces Captain America - the Leader
Black Panther replaces Thor - the Mythic Figure
Dr. Strange replaces Iron Man - The Brash GeniusI'm not sure who the "lower" trio is:
The Brute - The Hulk - ??
The Spy - Black Widow - ??
?? - Hawkeye - ??
Not sure all will leave at once and/or be replaced or be replaced as a 1 for 1 replacement. And yeah, some folks have been placing Captain Marvel as alternative to Thor--superstrong, cosmic power, cocky warrior--and Black Panther as Cap's alternative--enhanced warrior on behalf of a nation, broody, good military leader.
I don't think all will go or be slotted out at once, but to play the game, I'd slot in Ant-Man and the Wasp into Black Widow and Hawkeye's roles as Infiltrators, with the girl being the unflappable competent one and the guy brilliant but kind of a normal dragged into cosmic scale battles. Keep War Machine as the powerhouse.
Then you also get other possibilities shaking things up, like a lot folks think Cap will die and Bucky or Sam will take up his mantle. (Or Agent 13, but given she got all but written out of both scripts she was supposed to originally have a major role in, that's highly unlikely. Hell, if I was Emily Van Camp, I'd've told Marvel Studios to stick their scripts where the sun don't shine a long time ago.)
As for Carol (as this is her thread), I wonder if the events of Endgame will keep her on Earth or if she will leave and not always be part of the Avengers, and most of her adventures will be in space. Personally I think it would be cool if she stayed on Earth for awhile, but then had a movie (say, Captain Marvel 3) where she goes back to space and heads up Alpha Flight as she had been doing in the comics not long ago. I hope we see her mainly in the present day now that her origin is established. Now we've got her here I don't want to keep jumping back and forth--it'll make following the character's development confusing. But I've heard Cap Marvel 2 will be her fighting the Kree and helping the Skrulls... honestly, while that could be cool, I'm also happy with a handwave of "she won" and keep her in the present day.
Captain Marvel 2 as a 2+ hour telling of her inevitably victorious battles in space ... I agree, slather on the handwavium, say she won - while leaving room for finer grained detail down the line if required - and let's see her lay waste to some scumbags. A whole lot of scumbags.
If there is a FF movie and the Skrulls show up, maybe make a nod to an old FF story where some Skrulls got turned into cows by Reed.
"Just don't ask us to turn into cows. Happened once and they never lived it down."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the structure of this film (where she not merely won all of her fights except for being sucker-punched by Talos early on), but did so in a commanding, dominating fashion, I actually kinda DO want to see her fighting the Kree and helping the Skrulls... because threatening her physical well-being is silly and pointless- but forcing her to play defense and make horrible, hideous about who to save actually has a degree of suspense to it.
Plus, you know. I wanna see more Lee Pace as Ronan, since he was sorta wasted as Shouty McShoutface in Guardians- I much preferred his smaller- but more genuinely creepy- role in this movie, and prequels are the only way to do that now!
Yeah I mean Ronan was pretty much wasted in Guardians I. At least in this movie, he's got some menace.
As for Cap Marvel 2, I'd honestly like to see her encounter say, the Badoon and/or the Brood as she helps the Skrulls find their way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I mean Ronan was pretty much wasted in Guardians I. At least in this movie, he's got some menace.
"For the good of all Kree."
That one friggin' line delivery made him easier to hate than his entire 'RAGH SMASH XANDAR!' schtick in GotG. He seems more like a fanatic as part of the Accusers than in his "rogue jerkwad" routine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you could also sub in Black Panther for Iron Man, given that both are rich and have access to advance tech and resources, enough to essentially bankroll the team.
IF I was Marvel, I would actually let the Avengers rest for a bit, and go with the new version of the Ultimates. Practically all of the existing team has been or will be introduced, including Cap Marvel, Black Panther, and Monica Rambeau. And Dr. Strange would be an easy sub in for America Chavez (You might need to wait a bit to build up the Multiverse concept before adding her)
Rumor has it that John Boyega had been in talks with Marvel, so at least some folks have speculated he could end up cast as Blue Marvel.
|
Finally got around to seeing the movie today, with my boy. I thought it was pretty decent, though not without its flaws. Definitely better than Iron Man 3, which I consider to be the absolute worst of the MCU movies. It's better than the second Thor, as well.
Some thoughts:
Another missed opportunity was the Skrulls. They started off okay, but then became the misunderstood bad guy cliche. It'll make it more difficult to bring them in as future baddies, which is what they're best as. I think the Russo brothers could have pulled that off better.
The Kree, on the other hand, came across as the duplicitous d~!$$eads they can usually be. That was well done. I was surprised by the gender flip on Mar-Vell, but it was the ever-spectacular Annette Benning, so that was cool.
Samuel Jackson was magnificent as always. Jude Law was pretty good. Ben Mendelsohn was okay, but he's a good enough actor that he could have done way better. I blame the writers and they're attempts to nice the Skrulls.
Actions sequences and FX were top notch. No surprise there.
I was really hoping they'd show Korath getting a f%@%ed up enough to require the cybernetic implants he had in Guardians of the Galaxy.
Finally, I thought they made her a little too powerful...for the "threats" she faced in the movie. To be honest, the only ones who were ever in any danger were...everyone but the hero. Not much of a challenge for the hero.
Did you also notice that in the new cycle of Avengers the core trio is:
Captain Marvel replaces Captain America - the Leader
Black Panther replaces Thor - the Mythic Figure
Dr. Strange replaces Iron Man - The Brash GeniusI'm not sure who the "lower" trio is:
The Brute - The Hulk - ??
The Spy - Black Widow - ??
?? - Hawkeye - ??
Well, you've got to put Spider-Man in there as well.
Is Scarlet Witch not returning for the new cycle of Avengers?
What about Vision?
...
Re_Captain Marvel:
Finally got to see it -- Had a blast!
;p
Carry on,
--C.
Psi,
Unclear what Elizabeth Olsen's plans are, nor anything about Paul Bethany.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psiphyre (and Werthead), if you're asking in context of Lord Fyre's question, he was talking about the "original six" (i.e. the heroes of the first Avengers movie). But I don't think (much as in the comics Avengers) members will swap out "cleanly" (so to speak) for one another, and the roster's always going to rotate a bit. It's more just sort of having fun tracing patterns.
FWIW, AFAIK until proven otherwise, Vision and Scarlet Witch will be around for other stories. The rumor mill suggests Wanda will be getting her own miniseries on Disney+, as will Bucky and Falcon (as a pair in one series).
Re: Skrull twist--per Kevin Feige in a recent interview, the whole point is simply to establish the Skrulls as full of complexity, morals wise, as humans (and in the MCU, other races). That there are good Skrulls does not mean there can't be bad ones, and indeed I think if we see villainous Skrulls later, that we see them good first helps the villainy of the baddies shine through harder.
As for Carol being in danger... I got the sense that there was a point where the inhibitor seemed like it could shut her down, and/or that the Intelligence would defeat her mentally. That was her personal "boss fight"--doesn't matter how blasty she is if she closes her own mind to herself and her abilities. At least I was quite worried about her the first time I saw that scene. The big blast out battle was just the victory march after breaking free and realizing her potential. Then there's a bit of a redux with her fight with Yon-Rogg... it isn't about the physical fight, it's about whether emotionally/mentally he still can manipulate her. And we see, decisively, the answer is no (but you stop and wonder for a minute). Her stakes are all entirely mental and emotional, not physical. For me that is far more effective--after all, I always trust the superhero is physically going to survive, that's sort of a given in almost all superhero films, especially if it's an origin story like this one (and we know she's going to be in the next movie). What happens to them internally is of far more interest to me personally; YMMV of course.
Psiphyre (and Werthead), if you're asking in context of Lord Fyre's question, he was talking about the "original six" (i.e. the heroes of the first Avengers movie). But I don't think (much as in the comics Avengers) members will swap out "cleanly" (so to speak) for one another, and the roster's always going to rotate a bit. It's more just sort of having fun tracing patterns.
FWIW, AFAIK until proven otherwise, Vision and Scarlet Witch will be around for other stories. The rumor mill suggests Wanda will be getting her own miniseries on Disney+, as will Bucky and Falcon (as a pair in one series).
** spoiler omitted **...
whut.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, they sure are going for a different feel for Captain Marvel 2 ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Woman is being told she can't feel what she wants to feel, be what she wants to be, then finds ways to break the mold and realize the power of her true self, and along the way Samuel L. Jackson helps provide her some perspective. Checks out.
Finally got around to seeing the movie today, with my boy. I thought it was pretty decent, though not without its flaws. Definitely better than Iron Man 3, which I consider to be the absolute worst of the MCU movies. It's better than the second Thor, as well.
Some thoughts:
** spoiler omitted **
I was disappointed with IM3 as well, but I've come around on it a little (a little). If you exclude the bait and switch with Kingsley, and the villain plot as a whole, I find the story line with Stark and the exploration of his doubt and depression interesting and vital to the overall arc of his character. It sets up his personality changes necessary for Age of Ultron and Civil War. This perspective doesn't save the movie, but gives it some redemptive quality.
Sigh. Captain Marvel, being a prequel film, wasn't one of my "must see" MCU films but I had high hopes for another entertaining entry in the MCU.
Unfortunately, what I experienced was a serviceable, but unremarkable superhero film.
Brie Larson's portrayal of Carol Danvers was a highlight. She found a way to portray a cockiness in a manner distinct from Tony Stark's or Thor's and I think she nailed the essence of the Danvers character which has kind of ranged all over the map at times in the comics.
The rest of the cast - human, Skrull, and Kree all do well in their roles as well (problems noted below).
The special effects are good and at this stage of the MCU, those are table stakes. The Skrull shapeshifting is exceptionally well done and are a highlight of the film.
That said, however...
This movie has little to no emotional weight to it. Danver's banter & chemistry with Fury is a high point, as are the scene's with Maria & Monica. But since Danvers is 'on mission' for almost the entire film, there is less time devoted to Danvers as a person. The story beats are there, but they're glimpsed so briefly (due to her memory loss) that with the sole exception of the 'she always gets back up' sequence, they don't really pack the same punch as other movie heroes have executed. It's actually a testament to Lawson's portrayal that you can feel for Carol to the extent that you do despite this failing.
There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard. Danvers is almost never in physical harm's way and the one time she is (the dogfight), since it's a flashback we know she's not at risk. Other characters have to survive to appear in other films and are clearly safe.
Action sequences are serviceable but unremarkable. There's nothing on par with an Avengers, Captain America, Black Panther, or Spider-Man fight scene here.
These two points combine into a larger concern - Captain Marvel is the first MCU character that left me thinking that the hero was too powerful. I haven't collected comics regularly in at least 15 years. I know Captain Marvel has been elevated to be one of the powerhouse of the Marvel Universe. But the power escalation that occurs in this film is problematic. Imagine Tony Stark going from Mark I armor to his Infinity War armor in the course of 1 film. Captain Marvel beats that. Carol goes from not knowing how to fly to literally flying through and smashing spaceships in a matter of minutes. It's the worst of the Superman problem of "how do you challenge a character this powerful"? Watching Captain Marvel left me with the feeling of the throwaway comic book storyline where the hero gets a ridiculous power boost which is quickly undone when the author responsible for the power boost rapidly leaves the title and the incoming author has to do a filler 'de-power the character' story just to make the character someone who can be challenged again.
Aside from Carol & Fury's banter and a Monica scene-steal or two, most of the humor seems forced. The 90's technology laughs land for those of us who lived through them, but the other 90's jokes effectively peak with the Blockbuster store. The attempts to capture some Guardian's style laughs with the alien cat quickly grow tiresome.
The 90's setting really does little to enhance the film. There is little, if anything, tied to the core plot that requires the 90's setting. Carol & Maria could still face male stereotypes in the military today as they could in the 90's and for what little mileage is gained from it in the film the decade is irrelevant. The relationship with Fury could have easily been filled by present-day Fury or another Shield agent. In fact, the #1 reason for setting this movie in the 90s seems to be solely so Captain Marvel can be worked into the MCU in time for Endgame. I can't shake the feeling that Captain Marvel would have benefited from having a movie or two of character development before integrating her into the Avengers.
The score being comprised almost entirely by 90's songs doesn't really land either. It's all serviceable but it feels like a 90's nostalgia grab bag whereas Iron Man's AC/DC or Guardians' 70's soundtrack really helped reflect the tone/attitude of their heroes or the film. And there is nothing close to approaching the goosebumps-inducing combo of Wonder Woman in action with her now-iconic theme.
Coulson is used effectively but almost too sparingly. Ronan...if you thought he was underutilized in Guardians this movie only makes it worse. Aside from providing more context as to what a Kree Accuser is, his appearance is worse than a throwaway.
But without a doubt, the #1 flaw of Captain Marvel is the one that I never expected. That's probably why it actually pisses me off rather than being a mild criticism. Nick Fury is played for laughs in this film. Aside from Jackson's & Larson's chemistry (which is great), the Nick Fury of this film is a pathetic shadow of his other MCU entries. Gone is the intelligent, secretive, cool, and calculating superspy. Instead we have a standard "agent" playing the role of comic relief. We know this isn't an issue with Jackson's ability to portray the character, so clearly the fault lies with either the writers, directors, or both.
Even though, by this time in the MCU, Fury would have met Alexander Pierce (his pic in The Winter Soldier is Fury with two eyes), reached the rank of colonel in the US Army, worked as a spy and has been with SHIELD for years, we get 'cool guy Nick Fury'. We get 'standard wisecracking Samuel L Jackson' rather than Nick Fury. This isn't the 'get the job done' Fury that Pierce describes to Steve Rogers. It isn't the guy who would oversee Project Insight. It's not even the "I've got my eye on you" Fury of Iron Man 2.
But wait! Maybe you'll embrace my wife's theory of "maybe he hasn't become cynical & jaded yet". I could stomach that if this film tried even a little to portray that shift. Remember how Fury "trusted someone once" and it cost him his eye? Remember how the Skrulls are part of this story so the setup for a worldview-changing betrayal is right effing there in front of you? Nope. Would-be top agent & superspy Nick Fury is too busy playing kissy face with a freaking cat. Hell, he didn't even get his blood pressure up that aliens A) exist, and B) can perfectly duplicate anyone, anywhere. No big deal, I'm Sam mutherf'ing Jackson, I mean...Nick Fury.
And then the loss of his eye is played for laughs.
Captain Marvel is decent superhero film and had it come out in the 90's it would have been fantastic. Bree Larson makes for a great Captain Marvel and I do look forward to seeing her interact with the larger MCU. But this movie has serious problems. It is definitely my least favorite entry in the MCU.
Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.
Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.
Yes, I think so.
Madness! Iron man 2 was soooo bad.
Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.Yes, I think so.
Worse than The Incredible Hulk?
Worse than The Incredible Hulk?Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.Yes, I think so.
Honestly, that one had me bouncing between the two. Ultimately, had Capt. Marvel been the 2nd movie in the MCU*, it would easily beat The Incredible Hulk (and probably others). As the 21st(?) movie in the MCU...not so much.
*Which is ironic, I guess, since chronologically, it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard.
Going to pull that out of the spoiler tag - I don't think it's particularly spoilery since we all know it's a prequel.
From my perspective, this is something that usually doesn't bother me in a superhero genre movie or comic, because there's usually no reason to fear for most of the principal characters in the genre - superheroes survive.
The genre itself isn't conducive to killing off the super-powered protagonists because its serial in nature - whether comic series or in movie franchises. The tension is almost always sought elsewhere using other suspense-building aspects of the story. "How to they get out of this?" "How does this affect other people?" and so on.
This might actually be a bit different in April since we, as viewers, know that multiple actors have contracts that are ending in Avengers: Endgame. We don't know if they're going to retire, die, or have something else happen to them. The fact that we know something about their future in the franchise is driving tension. Will they kill off Iron Man, Cap, Thor? Who knows?
On the other hand, even though this isn't a prequel, we're pretty sure they aren't killing off Black Widow. Scarlett Johansson's got at least one other moving coming up. Her serial/franchise life will continue.
There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard.Going to pull that out of the spoiler tag - I don't think it's particularly spoilery since we all know it's a prequel.
From my perspective, this is something that usually doesn't bother me in a superhero genre movie or comic, because there's usually no reason to fear for most of the principal characters in the genre - superheroes survive.
The genre itself isn't conducive to killing off the super-powered protagonists because its serial in nature - whether comic series or in movie franchises. The tension is almost always sought elsewhere using other suspense-building aspects of the story. "How to they get out of this?" "How does this affect other people?" and so on.
This might actually be a bit different in April since we, as viewers, know that multiple actors have contracts that are ending in Avengers: Endgame. We don't know if they're going to retire, die, or have something else happen to them. The fact that we know something about their future in the franchise is driving tension. Will they kill off Iron Man, Cap, Thor? Who knows?
On the other hand, even though this isn't a prequel, we're pretty sure they aren't killing off Black Widow. Scarlett Johansson's got at least one other moving coming up. Her serial/franchise life will continue.
I'm not even referring to killing off a hero like Danvers. I understand the genre. What I mean is that at no time during the film did I feel she or any other character was is danger of being harmed.
It's one thing to know Iron Man will be in another movie but has a scene where he's outmatched or getting his butt kicked. It's another for him to cakewalk through the film.
I like my heroes having to outwit and outfight the enemy. The only obstacle Danvers has to overcome is memory loss. Combine that with no real threat posed towards the supporting cast and you get the lack of tension or threat I referenced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hearkening back to my own review- I definitely agree with BPorter that the 90s setting was... honestly, felt like a kitschy wallpaper choice rather than a setting we absolutely had to have.
I grasp that the film was designed as a period piece from the word go (no real idea why, except for wanting to use Ronan in a bit part?), but if they'd been more on the ball, Carol could have been introduced in Phase 2 and sent off into space to do space stuff.
This feels like, "crud, we want to use this character but haven't set her up yet beyond a teaser at the end of Infinity War, so, uh.... 90s nostalgia is a thing, right?"
Problem is, the 90s bits were almost cringe-inducingly "wink at how retro this is, people who were there at the time."
I appear to have liked the overall film a hell of a lot more than BPorter (thanks! Now I can say that about someone in the thread!), but the period setting was... too close to be interesting, too distant to feel like anything but a blatant nostalgia-swipe from the filmmakers- consider how many of the people seeing these flicks weren't even alive in the mid-1990s. It's a jab at the 30-40 somethings, but otherwise it's just stuff.
Hearkening back to my own review- I definitely agree with BPorter that the 90s setting was... honestly, felt like a kitschy wallpaper choice rather than a setting we absolutely had to have.
I grasp that the film was designed as a period piece from the word go (no real idea why, except for wanting to use Ronan in a bit part?), but if they'd been more on the ball, Carol could have been introduced in Phase 2 and sent off into space to do space stuff.
Setting her origin movie in the 1990s worked perfectly for me. An important aspect of Carol's character, at least in the comics, is she's an established woman. She's not some kid at the beginning of her career and she's got years of life experience - particularly within military organizations - behind her. For that reason, I'd have been happy with them casting someone older than Brie Larson - someone like Lena Headey or Charlize Theron.
There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard.Going to pull that out of the spoiler tag - I don't think it's particularly spoilery since we all know it's a prequel.
From my perspective, this is something that usually doesn't bother me in a superhero genre movie or comic, because there's usually no reason to fear for most of the principal characters in the genre - superheroes survive.
The genre itself isn't conducive to killing off the super-powered protagonists because its serial in nature - whether comic series or in movie franchises. The tension is almost always sought elsewhere using other suspense-building aspects of the story. "How to they get out of this?" "How does this affect other people?" and so on.
This might actually be a bit different in April since we, as viewers, know that multiple actors have contracts that are ending in Avengers: Endgame. We don't know if they're going to retire, die, or have something else happen to them. The fact that we know something about their future in the franchise is driving tension. Will they kill off Iron Man, Cap, Thor? Who knows?
On the other hand, even though this isn't a prequel, we're pretty sure they aren't killing off Black Widow. Scarlett Johansson's got at least one other moving coming up. Her serial/franchise life will continue.
I'm not even referring to killing off a hero like Danvers. I understand the genre. What I mean is that at no time during the film did I feel she or any other character was is danger of being harmed.
It's one thing to know Iron Man will be in another movie but has a scene where he's outmatched or getting his butt kicked. It's another for him to cakewalk through the film.
I like my heroes having to outwit and outfight the enemy. The only obstacle Danvers has to overcome is memory loss. Combine that...
Captain Marvel and Endgame are being released 6 weeks apart. This movie is largely here to set up who she is and to immediately place her on the level of being able to assist Thor in fighting Thanos. For this to make sense, she has to literally be seen on screen doing things of a similar power level as Thor.
Side note: at the end of Infinity War, Thor's actions and CM's actions at the end of her movie, are essentially mirrored in what they can do. They both fly through the air and even blow up large enemy starships by flying directly into them and blowing them up as they pass through.
Basically, you are complaining that the villains from a single marvel movie don't match up against the villains that they've been teasing and introducing for almost 10 years now and have appeared in multiple movies, and that that ruined the standalone movie for you.
Captain Marvel has to be able to fight Thanos. Not necessarily in 1 v 1 combat, but she has to be stronger than Ironman/Nebula/Dr. Strange/Spiderman/Starlord/Mantis/Drax combined, because they only got a single drop of blood from him. If she isn't more dangerous than that, there's very little reason to introduce her for Endgame.
Captain Marvel is less of a prequel, and more of a prelude for Endgame.
Also, the Danvers/Rambeau/Fury scenes (any combination of the 3) are almost half of the screen time of the movie. I'm not sure what you were smoking that made you think they didn't spend enough time on it. I went and watched the movie a second time, and they are a lot longer than a lot of people who are critical of the movie give them credit for.
cqc fight scenes (the unfortunate tendency in some MArvel movies of being filmed too close to the action and wanting to move the camera around all the time to prevent you from getting a good look at things).
This isn't just the MCU. American fight choreography has always been kinda bad. Prior to the 90's, it just lacked all sorts of technical proficiency. A few good starts in the late 80's and 90's elevated it briefly, but then the Bourne Identity was made. Parts of it are actually decent, but it also presented people with a fast-paced frenetic style, and that style makes it easy to cover up poor fight scenes.
There's also a lazy technique of filming with 2 cameras, it's something that's used to help catch errors, or ensure that it's being framed well, but directors have started to just use it for cutaways (before this second cameras film was actually rarely used). If you watch the Black Widow interrogation scene in the first Avengers it's pretty obvious.
But you find all these sins in most movies. The only movies off the top of my head that give you consistent wide shots of action (recently) are Mad Max: Fury Road and the John Wick movies.