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

4 Reasons to Watch "American Hustle" and 3 Reason to Not.

4 REASONS TO WATCH:

4. BECAUSE JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS OFF THE RAILS…

But in a good way.  Sure, there are a few moments where you start to feel the twinge of your eyes rolling their way back into your head, but the character is over-the-top and Jennifer Lawrence unapologetically goes for it.

3. AMY ADAMS’ NEAR WARDROBE MALFUNCTION…

in every single scene.  The question most asked after seeing this film: “Did you see Amy Adams’ shirts?” and the response most often provided: “Yessssssss!”

2. THE BAD HAIR

If ever you need to feel good about being follically challenged, take a gander at the wig work in this film.  It’ll immediately pump your tires while reminding you that nothing good ever came out of the 70’s.

1. IT’S LIKE WATCHING THE NBA ALL STAR GAME

The movie is a collection of great talent (for the most part) performing at peak levels.  Sure the script is not that good and thus the production feels like a showcase of talent rather than one cohesive narrative, but like the NBA All Star game, there is just enough raw talent to overcome this and provide adequate entertainment value.

AND 3 REASONS TO NOT TO WATCH:

3. BECAUSE BRADLEY COOPER IS OVERRATED.

After one good turn in "Silver Linings Playbook," society as a whole has decided that Bradley Cooper is actually a great actor.  I've yet to see this point validated.

2. THE SCRIPT IS GENERIC AND INCONSISTENT.

This movie is the definition of a script written for the sake of making a movie.  Is it loosely based on real events?  Sure, but the key word is loosely.  What is fiction turns out to be pretty unimaginative and the consistency of the characters falter under the weight of this flawed plot.  And the minute you walk out of the movie, you'll immediately decide there's no need to ever see it again.

1. BECAUSE THE VIEWER IS LEFT WITH NO SKIN IN THE GAME.
Almost every good movie has a likable person to root for regardless of whether they are to come out on top or not.  Most everyone in American Hustle is drenched with the stink of deceit and corruption, making it hard for the viewer to become invested in any one character.

Read More

Review: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

When Snow White and the Huntsman had a modicum of financial success, you knew it wouldn’t be the last time we’d see Hollywood dip their toes into the pages of children’s literature in search of another tale that could be spun into a commercially viable action narrative geared towards an adult audience; hence the production and theatrical release of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  That the movie was released in January is a telling sign of how the execs at Paramount felt about the film, but it still managed to pull in a respectable $223M worldwide.  But does that mean Hansel & Gretel is actually a good movie?  Not necessarily.   

The movie kicks off by retelling the classic tale of Hansel and Gretel and using it as the origin story for the witch hunting adult version of the siblings (played by Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton) we are introduced to onscreen.  The plot finds Hansel and Gretel hired by a village to stop a group of witches from kidnapping their children, but as the duo investigate the occurrences, Hansel and Gretel uncover a deeper more nefarious plot that may ultimately shed some light on their long lost family.

So it’s not the absolute worst premise, but what little hope there might be is critically damaged by some curious choices on the part of the creative team.  Unlike Snow White and the Huntsman, the tone of this film makes you feel like no one from top to bottom is taking this movie seriously.  There’s always a tongue-in-cheek/ wink wink vibe that gives the impression that the entire production is one inside joke, and Jeremy Renner’s natural inclination towards wry sarcastic delivery only fans these flames.  As a result, the movie feels off kilter, unbalanced, and makes it a difficult narrative to digest.  It’s like eating food during a blind taste test; you’re hesitant and distracted because you’re not really sure what they are feeding you.

Where this film truly falters though is in its failure to get you to invest in the characters.  Orphaned, traumatized, always venturing perilously close to death, and yet it is near impossible to care for the protagonists and their cohorts in the least.  The blame for this has to falls on the shoulders of director Tommy Wirkola and his inability to flesh out the characters and build tension and suspense into the plot.  Besides getting the film in the can on budget, ensuring those two elements were probably his primary points of emphasis, so it’s hard to view his work as anything but a failure.

Jeremy Renner does him absolutely no favors as Hansel.  Renner is very good in certain roles, but I don’t think he is the fountain of acting talent that many claim him to be.  He’s a one-gear actor limited range and this role resides far outside his wheelhouse.  His Hansel costume looked more suitable for a bad SNL and rendered him every bit the fish out of water that Mila Kunis seemed in Oz The Great and Powerful.  While he does provide the occasional entertaining moment, his work for the most part feels clunky and awkward.

If there is a redeeming quality for this movie it has to be Gemma Arterton as Gretel.  She may not be significantly more successful than Renner at disappearing into her character, but she does perform most of the heavy lifting in regards to advancing the plot and does so with an impressive screen presence.  I am guessing that Arterton could read the pages of the phone book and make it sound like a canonical piece of literature with her voice inflection and accent.  It’s a quality that is not lost on the viewer despite the morass of incidental nonsense taking place on the big screen.

As for the rest of the cast, Famke Janssen reprises the role of Jean Gray from X-Men: The Last Stand only this time she is supposed to supposed to be Muriel, a wicked witch.  Unfortunately, the performance is as weak this time out as it was six years ago in the Brett Ratner directed fiasco.  Peter Stormare as Sheriff Berringer also recycles the past as he delivers the exact same performance that he has put forth in last ten movies.  Sooner or later someone is going to figure out that they can just edit his past performances into each subsequent movie and save him the trouble of showing up to the set.

So what you have then in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a movie with a soft of premise, poor directing, uninspired acting, and moderately entertaining action scenes – all of which collectively induce apathy.  I don’t think the movie is a complete write-off as there is just enough to keep you occupied on an extremely slow night, but in order to appreciate this film, you will have to approach it with a tongue-in-cheek attitude and very low expectations. It’s not a purchase or a rental and maybe not even a pay cable channel movie.  My best suggestion is to forget about it until that one day you randomly happen upon it while flipping the channels.  Those conditions probably give you the best chance of enjoying this film.   Under any other circumstances, it is probably a “no.”

Standout Performance: Gemma Arterton.  She’s not the best actress of her generation and at times she may not even seem like a very good one, but she has an indefinable screen presence – something sorely lacking in today’s cinema.

Read More

2012 Vanity Post, Part 2

How does Ted not make this list?  I have no idea, but I digress.  As promised and in the interest of fairness, I have followed up The Vanity Post, Part 1 with a Part 2 that this time around features actors from the past 12 months.  To aid me in this list, I have solicited the help of some fellow cinephiles who are much more inclined than me to take notice of a good-looking man onscreen.  So without further ado, I defer to their expertise.

GENIUS, BILLIONAIRE, PLAYBOY, PHILANTHROPIST

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in The Avengers

JUSTIN BIEBER MILEY CYRUS LOOKIN MUTHA#$@!

Channing Tatum as Jenko in 21 Jump Street (2012)

BEING BETTER THAN THE GAP

Ryan Gosling as Jacob Palmer in Crazy Stupid Love

THE BOY WONDER

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake in The Dark Knight Rises

GOOD OLE NUMBER 20

Chris Evans as Colin Shea in What’s Your Number?

A LOVER NOT A FIGHTER

Tom Hardy as Tuck in This Means War

MAN OF THE HOUSE

Ryan Reynolds as Matt Weston in Safe House

NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Justin Timberlake as Dylan Harper in Friends with Benefits

FRIDAY NIGHT FIGHT
Taylor Kitsch as Chon in Savages

EYES OF A HAWK
Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton in The Avengers

CLICK HERE FOR PART 1

Read More

Review: The Bourne Legacy

Is it possible for Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) to not be in a movie, but then be in a movie, but then not actually be in the movie?  This is the question I asked myself repeatedly during the first act of The Bourne Legacy.  We get that there is a connection to the previous trilogy starring the aforementioned Damon especially since the name “Bourne” is in the title of the new film, and we get that “There Was Never Just One” as we’ve been told by the incredibly vague one sheets (worst. marketing. ever.) plastered at your local bus stop.  But to devote so much of the first act towards the previous film – The Bourney Ultimatum – even though the films are meant to be perceived concurrently really derails Legacy as a stand alone film.  That and the fact that the opening act is incredibly slow really sets a bad tone for the rest of the movie - one that proves difficult to overcome.

The Bourne Legacy follows the plight of Aaron Cross (played by Jeremy Renner), who is yet another covert operative in the increasingly crowded world of espionage originated by author Robert Ludlum.  Cross is a somewhat reluctant agent who is put on the run when CIA officials decide to cut bait after the fallout from Bourne’s activities.  Throw in some genetic alterations, pharmaceuticals, (a hotbed of political activity, no doubt) the lovely Rachel Weisz, and morally ambiguous government officials and we’re off to the races.

Legacy is not a bad movie, it’s just not what we’ve come to expect from the series.  And if they wanted to make more of a clean break and reboot the franchise, spending the first 30 minutes of the film unraveling Jason Bourne’s final cinematic act was probably not the best way to proceed.  That it lends itself to a ton of exposition and brings the pacing to a stand still further exasperates the problem.  And like a basketball player who front rims his first foul shot, director Tony Gilroy over compensates the methodical start to the film by fast forwarding through the third act.  Or  in basketball terms (to complete the analogy), he clangs the second free throw off the back of the rim.

Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross is adequate.  There’s nothing here we haven’t seen from him before.  He is no nonsense and brings enough physicality to role to make things credible.  There’s just nothing extraordinary about his performance – no extra layer that sets his character apart from dozens of other cinematic tough guys who can wield a gun and save the girl. Ditto for Rachel Weisz as Dr. Marta Shearing, who knows very well how to play this type of role.  We’ve seen her do it expertly in The Mummy and Constantine.  Again there is nothing special about her in this film and the charm that usually makes her standout onscreen is noticeably absent.

As for the rest of the cast, it’s Ed Norton and a bunch of people you vaguely recognize (Scott Glenn, Donna Murphy, Stacy Keach), only it’s not the Ed Norton of American History X or Fight Club.  It’s middle aged Ed Norton in business casual looking grim and frustrated from inside an office building and it’s definitely a step down for an actor who has delivered many memorable performances.

In gauging this film, the tenor of my review is probably more negative than my initial reaction to the movie, but as the saying goes, “to those whom are given much, much is expected.”  And the creative team has been given much – a strong cast and a well-recognized franchise, but at the end of the day, despite all the motion and commotion, you’re left to wonder what was really accomplished during the film’s two hour running time.  That is where my disappointment with this film ultimately stems from.

Despite all this, I would recommend The Bourne Legacy only with diminished expectations.  It’s not a game changer and not a mind bender.  It’s your standard action fare with expertly shot action sequences and a little too much exposition in between.  One can argue whether it is a successful reboot of the franchise, but the better question to be debated is whether or not it is a franchise worth watching without the character (and actor) whose name appears in the title.  My answer is going forward is no.

Standout Performance: The nod has to go to Jeremy Renner for this film even though his performance is not exceptional.  He does all the heavy lifting here and everyone else in the movie is more or less window dressing.

Read More

May 2012 Editorial: Who's Hot. Who's Not.

As we all know, stars rise almost as quickly as they fall in the revolving door, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world that is Hollywood.  So here’s quick look at which actors and actresses are trending up (Who’s Hot) and down (Who’s Not) with the help of some friends.

HOT: Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  Because he is about to appear in The Dark Knight Rises after some  great performances in 500 Days of Summer and Inception.

NOT: Taylor Kitsch.  Because he starred in two movies this summer (John Carter and Battleship) with budgets of $200M that will represent huge busts for Disney and Universal.

HOT: Robert Downey Jr.  Because he is the lead player in the ensemble cast headlining the record shattering The Avengers (as evidence by his $50M payday) and because I expect him to be just as great in Iron Man 3.

NOT: Reese Witherspoon.  Because she has traded in the innocence and charm that made her famous in Legally Blonde, Just Like Heaven, and Four Christmases for more traditional starlet roles in Water for Elephants and This Means War.  Why go away from what is working?

HOT: Jeremy Renner.  Because he was great in The Hurt Locker,  Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and in The Avengers.  I look forward to seeing him in the Bourne Legacy.

NOT: Nicolas Cage.  Because of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Drive Angry, Season of the Witch, and the list goes on and on.

HOT: Zac Efron.  Because he has successfully made the transition from child/adolescent roles to adult roles as evidenced by his recent performance in The Lucky One.

NOT:Alec Baldwin.  Because 30 Rock and his annoying Capital One commercials – while once great – have clearly gotten old.

HOT: Charlize Theron.  Because she is coming off in an interesting turn in Young Adult, and is appearing next in Snow White and the Huntsman, and the much anticipated Prometheus.  And also because she is Charlize Theron.

NOT: Jason Segel.  Because he is coming off  three lukewarm performances in The Muppets, Jeff, Who Lives atHome, and The Five-Year Engagement and because this past season of How I Met Your Mother was the worst yet.

Read More

Review: The Avengers

I think when Joss Whedon signed on to direct The Avengers, he knew it would be a juggling act.  The film features three stars from active franchises, one CGI-driven protagonist from a franchise twice rebooted, a bow and arrow wielding lead of the soon-to-be-released Bourne Legacy, a person twice voted sexiest woman alive, and Samuel Jackson who has been in pretty much every movie ever made.  That’s a lot of “material” to cram into two and a half hours – let alone craft into an epic narrative.  I am happy to say that in another life Whedon could have been a circus performer because he pulls off an epic juggling act, because The Avengers is a very entertaining movie that flat out delivers.  It’s not a perfect movie, but considering that Whedon was not only trying to balance an ensemble cast, but really a collection of franchises, it is about as strong and exhilarating an effort as one could hope for.

The movie wastes no time getting into the plot and never lets up until the second of two after the credit scenes (the last of which was one of the best scenes in the movie).  The third act is punctuated by the kind of action sequences between a set of heroes and villains that for so long has been relegated to ink stained funny pages.  But before that, we get a narrative that is engaging with some surprisingly fantastic comedic moments.  The one sticking point to the movie is that in the second act, the pacing gets bogged down in some character development.  As necessary as this is, it feels slow in comparison to some of the huge action sequences that lead up to it.

As for the cast, here is how the principles performed:

I am hard-pressed to think of an actor who embodies the character they portray more than Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man.  RDJ’s deal gives him as much input (if not more) on the character as the writers themselves, and because of this it so often feels like he is playing himself.  And this is a very good thing, because in The Avengers Downey Jr. delivers his typical sharp quick-witted commentary and keeps the dialogue entertaining even when the plot slows down during exposition.

Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America is strong as the iconic straight-laced hero and sets up a perfect contrast to Downey Jr.’s Stark.  This is no easy fete as at times in The First Avenger, Evans’ Rogers suffered from what I have dubbed the Superman/Batman syndrome.  Superman is a character people should aspire to be.  Batman is a character that people can relate to.  In the times we live in, a large percentage of the population gravitates towards the latter than the former.  Evans’ Rogers is definitely more of the former than the latter – but this is a good thing as agent Phil Coulson reminds us while swooning over the presence of Mr. Stars and Stripes.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor is to me the character they had the most trouble reconciling with the plot, which is confusing since his character has the strongest ties to Tom Hiddleston’s Loki.  Hemsworth easily slips into the role of the Asgardian warrior as he did in Thor (the woman seated behind me who could not stop gasping every time he showed up on screen no doubt agreed), which made it disappointing that he was relegated more to the background in this jaunt.  His scenes with Hiddleston’s Loki though are some of the most conflicting and intense and definitely tease a number of possibilities for Thor 2.

Hulk in a lot of ways steals the show in the third act as Whedon has figured out that he can be heroic, comedic, and highly entertaining – in small doses.  As for the man who portrays Bruce Banner, Mark Ruffalo does a very good job of bringing a sense or reluctance to the role.  He excels where Eric Bana and Ed Norton before him failed and this is particularly important in this film, which is already loaded with alpha males.  Ruffalo’s sheepish demeanor brings a sense of balance to the proceedings.

Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner – the dual assassins – expertly portray the roles in which they are cast.  Johansson clearly has seen better days but for once her droll delivery is perfect as Romanoff/Black Widow.  Likewise, Renner’s rugged appearance and gruff demeanor fit Clint Barton’s persona to a tee.  While the two are portraying b-level members of the group, they are well suited to add support to the larger than life personalities that they share the screen with.

If there is a weak point in the cast, it is Samuel L. Jackson who has a track record of being the weak link in epic action movies (see Star Wars episodes I,II, and III).  There are other ways they could have gone with this casting, but unfortunately the proverbial die was cast over four years ago in the post-credit scene of Iron Man.  S.H.I.E.L.D.’s on screen representation however is greatly redeemed by Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson and Cobie Smulder’s Agent Hill.

Then there is Tom Hiddleston as the antagonist, Loki.  No action movie can be great without a worthy villain.  Hiddleston brings a menacing depth to Loki that permeates every smile and stare he casts at his adversaries.  Never is this more evident than the scene he shares with Johansson’s Romanoff.  To me his villainous work here is on par with anything Heath Ledger did in The Dark Knight.

The Avengers is the movie fan geeks of all ages have been waiting for long before Downey Jr. ever donned the Mark I suit.  It is fun, exhilarating, and will make you want to cheer out loud.  I would most definitely recommend seeing this on the big screen.  The colors are vibrant, the action is fast, and the scale is enormous.  The only downside to watching this film is that you have to wait at least a year before Iron Man 3 makes back to the big screen.

Standout Performance:  There are a lot of great performances but I really enjoyed Gwyneth Paltrow in the film.  It is a very nice touch.

Read More