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: Django Unchained

Most people would agree that Quentin Tarantino is a creative individual.  Whether he is a good writer is a topic more up for debate.  To me, Django Unchained illustrates the dichotomy between that creativity and literary arts as the film is loaded with dynamic visuals and cinematic flair, but is often anchored by rudimentary logic and clunky dialogue.  The result is an entertaining movie that lacks the foundation upon which to build a truly strong cinematic narrative.

The film details the plight of a slave who joins up with bounty hunter Dr. Schultz to track down and kill criminals on behalf of the U.S. District Courts.  After a very successful winter, he earns his freedom and with the help of Schultz seeks to buy back his wife, who is owned by nefarious plantation owner, Calvin Candie.  Needless to say, things go awry and conflict ensues.  After watching that conflict arise and conclude, I walked out of the cinema thinking that I liked the movie but probably would not watch it again.  In the spirit of delivering the veggies before the dessert I will start with why I wouldn’t watch it again.  To me the reasons are three fold:

1. The writing. Tarantino’s creativity really pops in those climactic moments when the pieces on the proverbial board come to a head.  There’s always a hip fan boy flair to these climactic scenes and an eye-popping attention to detail.  The problem though is with the rest of the film.  Dialogue, exposition, and the other nuts and bolts of story telling are the connective tissue that tie a film together and unfortunately at times Tarantino skimps out in those areas.  That quality is precisely what keeps this film from being something more than just an entertaining jaunt. 

2. The second reason I would not see this movie again is Jamie Foxx.  With all due respect to his apologists, the man is not much of an actor.  He is a great impersonator – as many comedians are, but when asked to give an original performance, he tends to underwhelm.  Without a doubt, he is the weak link in the cast, and that’s incredibly problematic since he is the protagonist. 

3. The third reason is the length of the movie.  There is this trend amongst “cinematic auteurs” to put as much as possible into a film with little or no regard to flow and pacing.  This almost always detracts from the film experience – particularly when it comes to the action genre, and detracts from the final climactic scene.  Less can be more, especially when it comes to editing matters.

As for reasons to watch this movie, by my count there are three:

1. Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz.  The key to films like Django Unchained is that there has to be heart at the center of the plot driving all the action.  Otherwise, it’s just purposeless violence and that can only hold an audience captive for so long.  Jamie Foxx’s Django is meant to serve in this capacity, but fortunately Waltz is able to deliver where Foxx falters.  His masterful performance becomes that emotional center – the heart, the sympathy, the love, and the loyalty, that engages the viewer and keeps them invested in the outcome.

2.  Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie.  This role would have been a challenge for even the most accomplished character actor to portray.  Candie is vile, flamboyant, and nuanced.  With the dialogue that Tarantino saddles upon this character, I could envision dozens of scenarios where this performance could have gone horribly awry, but to his credit, DiCaprio is able to not only prevent Candie from morphing into a caricature of epic of proportions but also to deliver a complex performance loaded with conviction. 

3. Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen.  There was point somewhere in Jackson’s career where he decided to do the Nic Cage money grab and accept every role thrown at him.  So much so that he could easily have usurped Kevin Bacon in the 6 Degrees of Bacon game.  Worse still is that he resigned himself to simply rehashing slightly altered versions of himself as Shaft in each of these movies.  In the same way that it finally felt like Bruce Willis was really trying again in Looper, that’s how I felt about Jackson in this film.  His performance was pointed, funny, duplicitous, and a bunch of other adjectives that people stopped using in regards to Jackson’s acting.

So when you consider the good and the bad, it becomes apparent that Django Unchained is an entertaining but flawed film.  It’s a fine line between quirky brilliance and utter camp and Tarantino typically hops over the line numerous times in his film.  Django Unchained is no exception to this rule.  But then you don’t go to see a Tarantino movie and expect high art, sweeping story arcs, and deep character development.  Those films come from the Steven Spielbergs of the world.  Django Unchained is for those on the other end of the spectrum who watch for the spectacle and are captivated by the visual.  If you find that you fall into the latter, then you will definitely want to see his movie on the big screen.  It will not disappoint.  If it is the journey more so than the destination that makes a movie for you, then I would see it as a rental.  You may not love this movie, but you will be entertained.

Standout Performance: Christoph Waltz.  A very strong character performance in movie otherwise driven by action.

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