Endgame - the end you have come to expect

Rating: 6/10 (23 September 2019)

I honestly think that I should not make a review of the final film in what has become perhaps the most profitable movie franchise of modern history, more so seeing at how much the series of films culminating to this point, as well as this film particularly, is being cherished and loved by so many across the globe. In fact, trying to rain on the parade not only seems an exercise in futility, but also seems pointless and even, to a degree, beating a dead dog down.
In short, saying anything negative about "Endgame" or the entire Marvel Movies franchise could perhaps, and quite possibly, only serve to attract hatred and retribution.
So instead, please read this "review", or rather a very personal opinion without any real weight, strictly as such: an opinion. It isn't meant to drag anyone down nor point fingers or soil the viewpoints or reputations of anyone involved directly or indirectly in any way. With the internet, everyone and their opinions have a platform to express their thoughts and I just thought I'd lay my own down strictly in order to make sense of what I have just witnessed (yes, late in the game compared to real "fans", but I myself stopped being a "fan" many years ago, many movies ago).
First of all, I wonder if anyone else remembers the time when on-screen visuals were something to be "wow"-ed by. I mean with the constantly evolving technical prowess of CGI in itself, it seems as though a film with amazing visuals achieved by CGI is something of a "given", if not a "standard". Ever since the 90s when CGI started creeping into most if not all of action sci-fi blockbusters, it seems that films are becoming more of a computer-generated moving animatic rather than carefully crafted and choreographed sequences performed by, well, real people. So much so that it has become quite the standardized fare in such big set features to include a few bigger and louder than ever before seen CGI action scenes, probably pre-prepared/visualized long before casting and principal photography has begun on these productions.
This rather recent "pet-peeve" of mine was perfectly displayed in "Endgame"'s final huge showdown between all the Marvel shared universes characters and their recruits agains Thanos and his own resurrected forces of annihilation. Just as the first giant metallic floating eels started screeching across the screen heading towards the "battlefield", I consciously heard my brain saying "well, here we go again for a big 15-25 minute exercise in screams, explosions, typical cinematic scoring and CGI melting pot which I could easily fast forward through". I mean, again, I know that it took hundreds of people countless computer power and long hours to achieve this flawless sequence, a sheer feat of dedication and talent obviously, but to me, it had already been done countless times in this cinematic universe alone. And yes, going into a huge Avengers film does mean such sequences will be intersped across the run-time(s), but I just found myself quite bored, almost like I was subjecting myself to a beautiful work of art that is essentially both meaningless and repetitive - like another easily replaceable and disposeable set piece that is required for the formulae to work, or else the target audience will feel cheated. This is something I myself found out quite a few films prior, as I also discovered I not only was feeling increasingly disconnected with the franchise, but also subjected with an increasingly less intellectually stimulating series of characters, some of which seemed to have gotten dumber with each new instalment of these films.
But as I said, the over-abundance of CGI set pieces is a pet peeve, and I am by no means a hater of all things CGI; quite the opposite as I find that many shots or sequences could simply never be achieved otherwise. I just find myself absolutely un-stimulated by these super-hero specific CGI set pieces, one reason why I pretty much stopped investing my time and money in these long ago (*)
(*) So how come did I find myself watching this one if I "hate" superhero films so badly? Well I knew I had to watch it eventually seeing as how my wife wouldn't, watch it without me! Hey, I got her to watch The Thing (1982), the Mad max films (yes, all of them!) and most of John Carpenter's films, so it's all about compromise!
Another pet peeve of mine is the run-time. Why do big budget blockbuster films feel the need to go above and beyond the 2-hour mark? Could it be because they wish to increase stock value in those "OOops I crapped my pants" diapers that people with over-active bladders need to use to sit through these 3-hours epics? Or could it be because the producers and board council members feel that they need to give more run-time to blockbusters because if a feature is only 90-105 minutes long, people will stay at home and binge-watch TV serials on Netflix and other streaming platforms? When a film's story and premise requires a longer run-time in order to properly develop a storyline without having jump cuts or feeling like they are rushing the plot along, I completely understand, but when a 3-hour film's essential storyline could easily have been made into a half or 2/3-sized version without the over-played CGI battle set-pieces, then it becomes a peeve of mine, especially since so many of these blockbusters (cough cough "Bruckheimer" cough cough) seem to overstay their welcome even before we hit the third act. In the case of "Endgame", there is a definite need to drive all the nails through the coffin(s) once and for all, and even the final post-climax "goodbye" sequences are nowhere near the sadistically elongated finales of the "Lord Of The Rings - Return Of The King", but I do feel as though the film would have benefitted if either cut down to a less lengthy one-piece, or even just separated as two regular-sized films. Again, this is just a general peeve of mine as I knew full-on, long before diving into this experience, that the film would require the better part of a day to watch to completion.
Another peeve I have is more towards a recent forced political perspective being carefully marketed and promoted in recent Disney productions, but is by no means fueled by any type of deep-rooted misogenistic preferences whatsoever, as I am all for (and pro) feminism and have been ever since I was able to comprehend just how women have been treated and are labelled and still to this day subjected from centuries upon centuries of propaganda and thought control methods into positions "underneath" that of the male of the species. Of course, just as it is difficult to justify the "civilization" of man based on centuries of "civilization" after thousands of years of pure savagery, such it difficult to break away from the pre-established decades-old (nay, centuries) repression of the female. For too many still, it is hard to break away from sexism after it has been engraved in our modern lifestyles and history lessons in the most subconscious of ways. However, I am somewhat insulted by Disney's recent ploy to target and "empower" the female target audience it is trying to gain through these franchises, after being (quite unfortunately) mostly predominantly very male-oriented. I mean don't get me wrong, female super heroes have as much right to be as ever-present and strong, super-powered, and self-abled as any other superhero (non-gendered extra terrestials included of course), but Disney should have included the strong female image from the start instead of seemingly forcing it in a rather non-natural fashion in the latter instalments of the films. I mean if anything, Scarlet Witch, She-Hulk, Wasp, and Black Widow should have been members of The Avengers from the very first "creation" in the cinematic universe, but perhaps by that time, Disney could nor foresee that having female heroes front and center from the get-go would be a better option instead of attempting to rally them all up in the last 2 or 3 final films of the franchise... Which may be why they are re-rebooting the entire series after "Endgame", in order to re-restart from "scratch" with female heroes "8 o'clock, day one" in the hopes to erase all previous movies and pre-established lore from then on?
Again, I am really all for the female presence in any and all aspects of super-hero lore, but I personally just don't particularly enjoy the way Disney has chosen to promote this post-post feminism (which, according to old school feminists, isn't feminism nor female power at all, but that's a different discussion altogether). Like other socio-political agendas, it is being promoted quite unsubtlely and clanky, and feels like something being added in post rather than being an intergral part of a whole. But then again, this is strictly a personal observation and opinion, nothing more.
I also mentioned this earlier on in my already way too lengthy ranting of an opinion here, but like all too many modern (i.e. post-Y2K of sorts) media entertainment, it feels as though the characters are being dumbed-down for the sake of an easy laugh. I mean I can understand not taking things too seriously, especially in works of fiction and even more so when it comes to stories involving ridiculous costume-wearing super-powered super-beings, but I sometimes feel I am the only one noticing that recurring characters who appear regularly in these Marvel franchise films seem to be losing IQ points with each minute added to these films' run-times. The fact that once in a while a joke is well played with perfect timing or having meta-references doesn't exclude what appears to be a more slacker-ish un-refined movement towards cheap and easy stabs at "comedy". At times it feels not only out of character but also out of place (depending on the circumstances) and made even more insulting is how everyone else in the scene seems to be gladly accepting and going along with what at times can only be described as "out of order". Is it because the