Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (Can't We All Just Get Along?)

Why the hate?

Forget the cinema score (for which Avengers: Age of Ultron scored an A), because those ratings are often skewed by super fans.  The reality is that there is a significant segment of the population that walked out of the cinema feeling less than satisfied with Marvel Studios latest release.  Now, I’m not asking you to queue up the violins; Age of Ultron is doing more than enough business to keep Bob Iger off the street corner with a tin cup.  What I do wonder is why some feel the movie is so lacking and nefarious that it warrants trolls sending twitter death threats to Joss Whedon and a series of blog commentaries declaring the portrayal of Black Widow an affront to gender equality?   

Relax, people.  It’s a movie and an entertaining one at that.

With that being said, it’s by no means a perfect movie and some of that disappointment has to stem from the weight of expectation born from Marvel Studios’ two most recent cinematic releases: Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy.  The former is a clever, well-paced action film cut from the same cloth as those political paranoia suspense flicks that so defined the 1970’s; and the latter is a witty unapologetic sci-fi flick loaded with all the charm that the Star Wars prequel films lacked.  Unfortunately, Avengers 2 is neither of these things and I think that contributes to the opinion of some that the movie falls well short of some incredibly lofty expectations.  Personally, I can boil my issues with the film down to two key points.

First, it suffers from a hybrid malady that is two parts Iron Man 2 and one part Spider-Man 3.  Like Iron Man 2, the film dedicates much of its time acting as an infomercial for the next phase of Marvel films.  I almost expected to see Tony Stark bust out a Slap Chop and start cutting up some onions.  But seriously, that Marvel wants to use their biggest film-to-date to set up the next phase of movies is not necessarily a bad thing - it just can't be the most important thing.  I absolutely enjoyed the winks and nods and the promise of things to come embedded in casual references, but at the end of the day, the film has to have a clear unimpeded arc and this movie has a few too many open ended narrative strings branching off from the main plot.  And like Spider-Man 3, the film seems to suffer from the toxic combination of a director in his franchise swan song and good old-fashioned studio interference.  Joss Whedon has candidly stated in a number of interviews that there is a lot going on in this movie and that some significant pieces were mandated by the studio, which most definitely would account for some mismatching plot pieces and incomplete storytelling (See: Thor’s arc).

Another area where the film has issues is the relationship between Black Widow and Bruce Banner.  To those who view this as misogynistic and a slap to face of women’s equality, I would respond with this: some people end up in relationships with people that they work with.  Now whether or not that is a good idea, is another discussion all together, but regardless it happens.  So no, my issue is not about gender equality, but instead a cinematic mechanical issue.  The dynamic between Black Widow and Banner feels the opposite of organic and the lack of chemistry between Johansson and Ruffalo really exasperates that feeling.  It would normally be forgivable had we not just recently seen what great chemistry in a Marvel movie looks like in Captain America: The Winter Solder – in which the dynamic between Johansson and Chris Evans elevated that movie from really good to great.  And thus, the Widow/Hulk coupling feels less than authentic and more a plot layer written for the purposes of adding weight to Banner’s decision at the end of the film; a decision that could have stood on its own.

Despite these shortcomings, there are some really great things going on in this movie. First and foremost, the movie is incredibly fun.  I didn’t go into the cinema expecting Godfather 2 and neither should anyone else, but in reading the comments from the knights of the keyboard and everyone else with a soapbox to stand on, the film failed because it’s not on display at the Louvre.  To those who demand cinematic art, I would like to remind them that it’s called the ENTERTAINMENT business for a reason; because it is supposed to entertain (and to make money).  This film does both.  Still, even the most ardent detractor would be hard-pressed to deny that the jokes are snappy and the action sequences are immense and thrilling.  There’s a witty camaraderie shared between the cast members that is not unlike that of George Clooney’s Ocean’s Eleven crew, but fortunately for Downey Jr. et al, they don’t plummet into the self-congratulatory hubris that doomed Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen (to a lesser extent).

Another thing that worked in this movie was Ultron.  One of my fellow film enthusiasts and a former colleague has long championed the belief that Marvel underwhelms with its villains.  I do not necessarily disagree with his assertion, but what I would argue is that it’s a byproduct of dedicating their screen time to establishing not only the heroes, but also their respective places in the vast cinematic universe.  The one exception here would be Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, who should almost be considered a co-star in the Thor Franchise.  And while Ultron is not necessarily the strongest villain and is visually banal, I think the way the character is written – that of a petulant, immature, uneven character bearing all the worst parts of Tony Stark’s narcissism, is smart.  He’s not a perfect villain, not even close, but James Spader (shout-out to Andover) elevates the character considerably.

So what’s the verdict?  It’s pretty darn good, but not great.  It’s fun and worth seeing on the big screen (if you haven't already), and most definitely a second time on the format of your choice to make sure you’ve digested everything that was going on, because there’s a lot.  Love it, like it, or hate it, I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the best part of the movie is that it promises that there are some very big things to come… or should I say little things as Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man is up next.

Read More

Review: Liberal Arts

When people write about liminal moments they wax poetic about the “coming of age.”  And when they crack jokes, it’s usually about the follies associated with the mid-life crisis.  And what of the thirty years that lie between?  That is what the plot of Liberal Arts is about – those three decades when an individual struggles to graduate from who they are to what they think they should be as adults.  When Richard Jenkins’ Peter Hoberg tells Josh Radnor’s Jesse that the world’s dirty little secret is that none of us feel like adults, he reveals the singular thread that ties the plot of Liberal Arts together. 

The narrative follows Jesse (Josh Radnor) – a overly sentimental man-child who spends too much time in the pages of a book and in his own head.  Lost as a thirty something, he carries around an idealized vision of his youth that is reinvigorated by a return trip to his college campus to celebrate the retirement of his favorite professor (Richard Jenkins).  The experience of seeing some old familiar faces, befriending a troubled youth (John Magaro), and striking up a romance with a precocious nineteen years old (Ashley Olsen) forces Jesse to take a hard look at his life – past, present, and future – and assess his struggles to grow into adulthood.

Radnor, of How I Met Your Mother fame, acts as both writer and director in the film and doesn’t completely fall on his face.  The narrative is a bit chatty and there are clearly some moments of self indulgence, but the arcs do a good job of capturing the pitfalls of nostalgia and contrast them nicely with the sense of impeding finality associated with one’s twilight years.  The young who struggle to be young and the old who struggle to be old with the Radnor stuck in the middle creates a natural tension that helps frame his emotional paralysis. 

It’s not a perfect film though.  Some plot elements are cliché and at times realism is sacrificed for an all-too-cute detail.  Furthermore, the tone oddly sacrifices it subtle touch at crucial junctures of the film, instead opting to hammer home points almost ad nauseum.  Still these issues and an ending that is all too predictable are covered up nicely by good acting.  Richard Jenkins is thoughtful, tragic, and genuine as the retiring professor who is fearful of life beyond his world of academia.  Likewise Elizabeth Olsen as Zibby is precocious, charming, and dynamic – the perfect embodiment of a romance that simply-should-not-be.

As for the rest of the cast, I found Josh Radnor’s protagonist satisfactory.  It’s hard to separate him from the character of Ted Mosby but in this film he has penned a character that is not much of a stretch for him to play.  It’s not easy to play a likeable character that does some questionable things, but he pulls it off.  On the other hand, I found the work of the usually solid Allison Janney (as cynical Prof. Judith Fairfield) an exercise in hokey over-the-top acting.  Hers was the least palatable of the principle characters and her scenes amongst the worst in the film. 

Clearly this is a movie with the look and feel of the indie production that it is.  It’s dialogue driven and loaded to the gills with sentimentality and nostalgia, and because of this it is not going to appeal to everyone.  However, if films about introspection and those in which the experiences of many come together to paint a complete narrative spark your interest, then this is a movie that you should see.  I don’t think it’s a great movie, but it has some nice qualities.  I don’t think it is supremely entertaining, but I did want to watch it to completion.  Thus, I give Liberal Arts a soft recommendation as a midweek rental that may make you ask yourself a question or two about your life even as you completely forget the film a couple hours after watching it.

Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen.  It’s hard not to like the younger sister of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen as she has shown herself to be a good actress with great screen presence.

Read More

Review: Silent House (2011)

Make no mistake about it, Silent House (2011) is a one-woman show – a movie that slowly unfolds from the perspective of Sarah played by Elizabeth Olsen.  Like Hitchcock’s Rope, this movie is carefully edited to give the appearance that the camera tracks Olsen’s every move with one continuous shot, meaning she is literally onscreen for 99% of the movie.  Given that amount of screen time, you would think that the success of this movie would ride solely on the shoulders of the youngest Olsen sister, but unfortunately there are other mechanisms in this film that ultimately spoil what is a solid piece of acting.

Brought to you by the directing duo that brought you Open Water, Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, Silent House is based on La Casa Muda – a Uruguayan film released in 2010 that was in turn based upon a real occurrence from the 1940’s.  The plot of this movie finds Olsen’s Sarah going to her family’s old summer home with her father and uncle to prepare it to be sold.  What follows is an uninterrupted eighty-five minutes of terror as Olsen’s Sarah finds herself locked in the home with an unknown figure lurking in the shadows.

To me, the horror genre is like the little brother that no one really expects much from, and so they throw him a ticker tape parade when he brings home a B-.  Like these enablers, fans of horror expect so little and yet remain so loyal.  So really, all this film had to do to be considered a strong showing was to deliver some cheap scares, a thrilling crescendo, and a big reveal that didn’t completely fall flat.

Unfortunately, the film morphs into two movies and not in a good way.  The first half plays like a nuts-and-bolts horror film, nicely slow playing the tension in the vein of Spielberg’s Jaws.  Had the creative team stayed this course, the film would have been a win.  Unfortunately, the second half of the movie morphs into a psychological thriller - from a horror film to a whodunit, which would not have been the worst thing in the world had the directors not tipped their hands too early.  And as much as this movie was marketed for the long tracking shots, that gimmick ultimately turns into a detriment as the edits become easier to spot and this breaks the reality that was nicely established earlier in the film.

None of the film's failures however has anything to do with Olsen.  She turns in a strong performance, especially considering that many of these takes lasted well over ten minutes.  With her background in live theater undoubtedly aiding her greatly in this role, there are two things that she absolutely nails in this performance.  First, she expresses sheer terror expertly through facial expressions with the kind of excellence not seen since the original scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis owned Halloween.   Second, she crafts a protagonist that is both likable and sympathetic. 

As for the rest of the cast, in their best moments they are merely adequate but for most of the film Adam Trese (as John), Eric Stevens (Peter) and Julia Taylor Ross (Sophia) show that they are not up to the task of keeping up with Olsen.  Collectively, they bring the quality of the film down a few notches as each delivers performances that are wrought with both overacting and underselling at precisely the wrong moments.  If the unsteady camera and poor lighting are not enough to give this a b or c-level movie feel, then the supporting cast makes sure that this is no longer up for debate.

What this all adds up to is a movie that is flawed, disturbing, and not as clever as Kentis and Lau thought it was when they plotted this remake.  If you love horror movies, then you will enjoy about 50% of this film and that may make it worth a rental.  If you are anything less than a huge fan of these types of movies, then this is probably a pass.  It is just not executed well enough to tolerate a twist that is incredibly disturbing and highly telegraphed.  In a genre where little is expected or demanded, there are just too many other titles to settle for this kind of mediocrity.

Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen – clearly the best actress in the Olsen family.  She dominates the film for long stretches and manages to rise above the mediocrity that surrounds her.

Read More