Article: Some thoughts on Infinity War

Note: While I have taken an effort to try and not and spoil the film, this piece will mention other fragments of the Marvel Universe which may affect your thoughts on Infinity War.

The Avengers: Infinity War has been a project which has been ten years in the making. It looks set to become one of the most financially successful features of its era, and it’s vindication for marvel studios who, prior to their release of 2008’s Ironman, were staring bankruptcy in the face. In watching the film, it has highlighted itself to be the best of what it is, a mega-franchise, a spectacle-laden, big-budget episode. A cinematic universe.

In the past few months, friends have objectified to my views that these films (nay all films) should ever be critiqued. They should be only viewed with the aims of “entertainment” only. As if we are all entertained by the same thing. Social Media, fan tribalism, and brand loyalty have also helped contribute to a nasty form siege mentality. Not only you should only look at these cultural texts as trivial distractions, you must pick a side and deal. All these films should be looked at like candy floss and we should be happy that we’re being delivered with all sugar we crave. I do like to indulge in sugar, but I’m also highly aware of my root canals.

Infinity Wars is a grand, all singing, all dancing affair. Something that in all honesty should be seen to be believed. A film looking to encompass pieces of 18 other films and finally drive them towards an end game. It is a fascinating and frustrating endeavour. It is a film full of eye-boggling spectacle, enjoyable laughs, and stunning imagery. But it is also a film that not only requires you to watch 30+ of other films for a viewer to truly understand it’s sense of gravitas, but it moves towards a climax that rings hollow. Less because it’s section one of two parts, more because the rules of this universe, as well as our own governing rules via the executive bean counters, have already taken away a true sense of closure. This is the ultimate “tune in next time folks”.

Joss Whedon has his detractors and understandably so, yet his previous excursions into The Avengers universe, while imperfect, always had a particular sense of purpose. A reasoning of why The Avengers avenged. The best Marvel films have a reasoning and understand of stakes which set them apart from some of the other entries. Whedon’s simple placement of a young waitress placed in danger and saved by Captain America (Chris Evans) in the first Avengers film may only be two scenes but gives a simple grounding of what’s at stake that is simply missing in Infinity Wars. It hasn’t got time. There’s all the characters to get through. Most of them Superheroes. Jokes have been made at The Defenders expense, but seriously, where could you fit them? But this complicated series of connections feels does feel odd. The world is truly at stake from one of the most interesting villains seen in this universe but I as a few never gained a sense of the world, because unlike some of the more compacted or isolated Marvel features, there’s never a sense that the world really features.

The film’s tonal shift and the downbeat climax is meant to portray a sense of maturity and feels like a clear shot at critics who have commented on how there often a feeling of comeuppance isn’t felt with some of these characters. However, this is where not obsessing over Marvel product would come in handy, we’ve been here before when it comes to “losing” characters within this universe and it’s hard to feel any emotion to the events, with the knowledge of contractual obligations and Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson appearing as fresh as a daisy on a certain tv show. Add to this the need to wade through 18 films to get why these characters “just turn up”, what’s witnessed feels disjointed. Other writers have labeled the film's climax as cheap, and it’s easy to see why.

Of course to say this is to be traitorous. How dare anyone say anything at all negative about a film that looks set of being one of the biggest money spinners of all time. It must be loved and only loved. There are parts that I really enjoy. See the guardians of the galaxy here was far more enjoyable than their second adventure. I cannot and will not fault the performances of the cast, in particular, an unbelievably solid Josh Brolin (I can’t wait for the meta references in Deadpool 2).  The Russo’s and their unit teams frame and execute the action set pieces with far more skill and grace than Ryan Cooglar’s efforts in Black Panther, while Thanos will stand alongside Killmonger, Loki, and Killgrave as the best villains of the Marvel rouge’s gallery. There is a lot to like here. Possibly even love. I just wish it hadn’t felt so empty. I’m relatively ok with having to plow through 30 hours of films to get to a certain point. It’s just sad that said point only feels like it’s gearing you up to watch another 30.  

Review: Straight Outta Compton

Year: 2015

Director: F. Gary Gray

Screenplay: Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff

Starring:O'Shea Jackson, Jr, Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Paul Giamatti

Synopsis is here:

Telegraph Film Critic Robbie Collins; amusingly tweeted the environment of the press screening of Straight Outta Compton in which critics were treated to Eggs Benedict (seriously). A later tweet hilariously likened the screening audience to Seinfield's apartment; very white bread. It’s easy to dread to think about what views were flying around. Often when heading to some screenings I gain a sense of faux progression. It’s hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that everyone is going to clutch on to their valuables if I sit too close to them. I mean, let’s be fair, I'm usually wearing a hoodie.

Such things are of invested importance when watching a film like Straight Outta Compton, which, while holds a closer relationship with the glossy, Sean "Puffy" Coombes produced biopic Notorious (2009), actually holds underpinnings of John Singleton's Boyz in da Hood (1991). The Ice Cube and West Coast connection are certainly not the only elements that bind those films.

A muscular and accomplished piece of storytelling, F Gary Gray's Straight Outta Compton explodes right out of the blocks with the kind of drug dealing sequence that wouldn't feel out of sorts if placed in the Hughes Brothers' debut Menace 2 Society (1993). What follows afterwards is a sprawling, textured history of one of the most influential bands of the genre of hip-hop; N.W.A. Compton follows the tropes of a typical rock biopic in terms of structure, but the weight and the relevant tone of its subjects elevate the film to a particular level. This cinematic rendering of one of rap's biggest super groups has been considered the "Black Avengers". This is a strange term which tries to mould the film within recent comic book adaptations. Such a description comes off more like a trendy term trying to attach a certain type of relevance, although the film often captures the fantastic aspects of the group's meteoric rise from underprivileged and oppressed youths to millionaire rap stars.

This is a rap version of the rock bio that plays out in board strokes with its producers (who are also the subjects of the film) are clearly mythologizing themselves in a light which draws them into a far more sensitive light. However, it's important to realise what the film's intentions are. Much has been said about the exclusion of the Dee Barnes' violent altercation with Dr Dre from the film, which was originally scripted. In fact the films entire reading of women is best described as "problematic".  In this film of young, flawed, disfranchised black male youths, the treatment of women within the frame is discouraging. Representation ranges from objectionable to confounding. Some sequences put the antics and debauchery of Entourage to shame. Meanwhile, long-term relationships with girlfriends/wives seemingly appear from nowhere, before being relegated to the background.

Yet while many of these criticisms should not be dismissed, the essence of the text must remain. While SOC depictions of women are insensitive, they could also be a strong observational representation of a group of angry, naive yet talented individuals. Condoning the actions is of course incorrect, but while it's reassessment of topical themes are important (we are looking at an 80's/90's story with 2015 eyes), the idea of reshaping elements to allow kinder gender politics may feel disingenuous here. Particularly to a rap group whose lyrics towards women were outwardly aggressive. That said, Compton does drop the ball somewhat by over smoothing the flaws of its protagonists to such a point that it lessens the complexities of the real life counterparts. Especially when we place Gray's position with the group during the time in which the NWA was active.  Easy E's promiscuous activities and Dr Dre's hostility towards women are only briefly glimpsed, if shown at all. Even in glossy biopics like Ray (2004) and Get on Up (2014) highlight the fractured relationships towards women that occurred, configuring their respective artists into tragic, flawed geniuses.

We must be reminded however that Straight Outta Compton is still a triumph of black male representation. This is an inversion of the brutal and fictionalised realities displayed by John Singleton and The Hughes Brothers. Updated with hopeful inflections and framed for audiences more interested in Hip-Hop than old style RnB/soul/funk. This is not only because the many subjects are still alive and still hold a level of relevancy and popularity, but also due to the film highlighting pathways that were only just hinted in the 90's and near dismissed within the universes displayed in the fictional urban movies of the past. Could we image poor, black L.A youths becoming billionaires? The fact is stranger than fiction, and the fiction needed to stay grounded.

From a directional point of view, this is Gray's boldest film, working closely with cinematographer Matthew Libatique, and providing striking and kinetic imagery to the story. Visually, the sheer scope of this film is impressive. The infamous "Bye Felica" sequence, which details the wild touring antics of the NWA, while controversial at its heart, holds choreography rarely even considered for a biopic such as this, let alone conceived. Libatique's usage of the 2.35: 1 ratio not only enhances the sheer scale of the concerts and the groups influence, but also help display the magnitude of the Watts riots the infiltrates the films second half. While the riots themselves only come across as a surface level framework for the film, it highlights the ambition that Gray is trying to achieve. Whereas Notorious remains focused on the subject of Biggie Smalls, Straight Outta Compton tries hard to place the group within a larger context. With the film reaching to pinpoint the growing tensions that still remain and still polarize America.

Credit must go to Grey's eye for detail, stemming from Eazy E receiving his shoelaces back from the cops after being arrested, to the diegetic music changes which occur after 1993. The subtle shift across states, may mean nothing to those not interested in hip-hop, but remind fans of the changing tones which happened at the time. There's also textual richness in casting which is highly notable, with many of the cast (both leading and support) being exceptional in not only their looks, but their mannerisms. This is the first time that the three leads have been given a chance to head up a production and all three are allowed to let their charisma flourish. Jason Mitchell and O'Shea Jackson Jr are the two standouts. Mitchell provides a depth to Eazy E's persona which allows the character to be more than just a pair of sunglasses and a high pitched rap voice. O'Shea's look and demeanor are so much like his fathers (Ice Cube), it's uncanny. Corey Hawkins is the weakest of the trio, but this isn't down to talent, but down to character. Hawkins' Dre is the most passive of the protagonists, which once again speaks towards what may have been left on the cutting room floor or script stage.

As mentioned by Scott Mendleson, Straight Outta Compton is the most unsurprising surprise hit of the year. Take away the fact that this is a story of a platinum selling music group, whose members have diversified into other arenas. Forget about the influence of the genre of music. Compton uses the tropes of the musical biopic and uses them exceedingly well. The fact that it continued to remain in its number one spot at the box office after the opening weekend, proudly shows its strong of word of mouth. Compton doesn't just raise the bar for the Rap biopic; it highlights just how universal and populist hip-hop stories can be. Hopefully its success may help stick a pin in the "urban movies for urban people" myth. What makes Compton illuminating isn't just the energy of its soundtrack or the knowing cameos, it's that the film takes hold of its story and tells it as boldly as it can. Something that critics of middle England and hoodie wearing rap fans like myself, can all agree, needs to be done when it comes to the movies.

Review: Captain America: The Winter Solider

Year: 2014
Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo
Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, Hayley Atwell, Robert Redford, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here 

I do say to myself that I’m tired of this current stream of comic book movies. I still find it astonishing how some of my friends keep themselves psyched for each upcoming entry. I guess they do well to avoid the teaser teaser trailers and constant click bait articles which break down said trailers shot by shot.  Of course you ignore these things as much as a mainstream film fan can, one can still suffer from comic book fatigue. Evidence can be found in the hammer headed -marketing campaign that The Amazing Spiderman 2 is leading.

I complain about these things and yet due to this blog, the current film environment and that fact that I'm full of self hatred, I find myself settling down with popcorn to watch these things. I have become more partial with the superheroes. I abstained from Thor: The Dark World, for no other reason than I'm not especially interested in that strand of the Avengers (Loki excluded). Yet I found myself hitting Captain America: The Winter Solider on the opening weekend. Reason being, I simply want to see what they do with Steve Rogers thread.

Captain America: TWS pleasantly reminds me why I find myself coming back to comic book franchises.  This is a solid extension of what has come before with its head firmly placed with where it wishes to go. The basics still remain; Roger's is still the slick haired, Boy Scout action man, whose heart is so securely in the right place, you'd need power tools to wrench it loose. Yet there's a stern sense of growth. Evans deals comfortably with Rogers as a man who is a step out of touch with the world, but with the willingness and ability to adapt.

Observing at how the screenplay deals with an extraordinary man thrust into a modernised cynical world, makes me consider just how crooked the likes of Man of Steel feels against this. True the Marvel studio has had time, but it only takes a few scenes to see the deftness of touch. One scene based inside Washington's Smithsonian Institution balances Rogers as the relic he was and the hero he is. It's executed with a grace that displays a sense of assurance the Russo brothers clearly have, considering these are directors whose recent history is been more successful with smaller screen comedies (Arrested Development, Community).

The film still suffers from conflict. The presence of Robert Redford, paranoid mood and knowing establishing shots of the Washington monument do suggest 70's thriller the film aims for, but once the action kicks in, the tone sometimes gets swallowed up by Marvel's action style. While we gain more physicallity than we've seen in previous entries, most of the action itself still feels pretty typical of what we know. Less Parallax View, more powerhouse punches, although it's hard to think of the target audience noticing.

Joe Johnson created a Captain America with a similar tradition to the likes of The Rocketeer (1991). The first film's buccaneering style and compositions feel more comfortable with the comic book source. It's difficult not to feel that that The Winter Solider does sometimes feel at odds despite its larger, more confident set pieces.

 The Winter Solider still maintains some neat touches. In a film that talks about the enemy within, it's interesting to see Rogers have a book on George Bush on his shelves. Early talk about R&B singer Marvin Gaye starts off as an amusing aside, but reminds us of the artist's socio political leanings as well as his death by the hand of his own father. Consider this when we discover the identity of The Winter Soldier.

The uncomfortable notion that no one can be trusted is becoming key to this incarnation of this Marvel universe. The Winter Solider toys with the strand as effectively as the other entries in the universe. Unlike Iron Man 3 however, there's less awkwardness in the carrying out of the theme, revelations feel less like pulled rugs, while red herring play out more than adequately. A small yet effective piece of editing seems to turn attention to a character that isn't surprising, but hints at a dormant conflict that would throw up interesting outcomes.

I found it hard not to think of more Paul Greengrass more than Alan J Pakula. Evans has the kind of conflict of interests that bother Matt Damon and while he takes on the unassuming role well, the superhero aspects make him a little less affecting than the likes Gene Hackman, Warren Beatty or Donald Sutherland. That said, these films have a different agenda than their influences, or fan canon for that matter. People like me need reasons to keep coming. If Marvel keep generating curiosities such as Captain America: TWS, I guess I'll keep spending.

Review: Iron Man 3

Year: 2013
Director: Shane Black
Screenplay: Shane Black, Drew Pearce
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Jon Favreau

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: The following review contains what could be considered explicit spoilers. The film may have raked in all the money, but one must believe that not everyone visiting has seen it. 

"Since New York, everything changed" states an anxious and perturbed Tony Stark. It is a statement I wholeheartedly agree with. The billion dollar blockbuster which was The Avengers showed us just how big Marvel and Disney want to make these comic book franchises. The Avengers may be mostly based within the state of New York, yet in terms of the stakes, you can sense just how high they have become.

The Avengers also brought about a straight headed frothiness often forgotten in this kind of venture; happily reminding us that these comic books can not only manage grandeur but can do so while being bright, breezy and colourful. Iron Man 3 feels rather wearily like two steps back. Now, we have "final" entry that is little too romanced by The Dark Knight than it needs to be. While the second film didn't much the scale of The Dark Knight, so much of Shane Black's screenplay has the tinge of Nolan's adaptation, that the film near loses its own identity. However, there was a good chance of that happening anyway, as Iron Man 3 also harbours an awkward mesh of Disney and ultra violence that comes close to undoing the work that the first two films happily put forth. Yes, that's an admission that I didn't hate the second film.

My main issue with Iron Man 3, stems from its jarring tonal shifts. The film looks set to delve into the more curious aspects of Tony Stark, who is now having nightmares and panic attacks due to the events in New York. Unfortunately, despite the large amount of time Stark spends out of the suit, the film does very little to look at his demons effectively.

In fact Stark and friends feel the best of curing what ails him is with ludicrous and abrasive violence. The kill count of the good guys is not only high, but doesn't feel wholly justified when put in consideration to the villains badly realised motives. We should be fine with Iron Man blasting away indiscriminately because he spends lots of time with some latchkey kid during the second act. Stark's Real Steel moments suffer from the same kind of clumsiness that affects Spielberg at his so called worst, and yet due to the "cool" factor that comes with Robert Downley jr, this seems to be bypassed. The jump from Fisher Price my first mechanic to blasting fools with little regard becomes a harsh discourse.

I began to find the whole thing reductive. As a Disney/Marvel franchise feature, going dark could be problematic, but hiring Shane Black makes a clear statement of intent. Black's traits are everywhere for all to see, but are shoved awkwardly into a third feature which had its character under a different arc. One where its character evolved from selfish arms dealer to all into someone who begin to understand the responsibility he held in his blood stained hands. IM3 decides to effectively blast that away for some kick ass action scenes. That said, sky-diving set piece aside, the films spectacle is only intermittently engaging.    

 Iron man is far happier dulling my expectations by messing around with its main villain, The Mandarin. It's understandable that some of the more controversial and prejudiced aspects of the character needed to be exercised, but why after to the blood and sweat are we left with yet another white collar industrialist as the man behind the curtain? The series has cumbersomely come full circle.

On the positive side, the cast are still finely tuned to everything thrown at them. Downley Jr and Paltrow bounce off that fantastic chemistry that makes them such a fun couple to watch. Black's screenplay does much to keep them separate, yet their moments together are still effective. Sir Ben's Kingsley guzzles scenery like toffee and I really can't fault anything Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle or Rebecca Hall have done recently, let alone here.

A lot of the dialogue is snappy and chucklesome and individual moments and scenes hit their mark as you'd expect from a writer of Black's calibre. Yet the entire feature doesn't settle well in the pit of my stomach. As murky as the politics were in Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, the film still managed to fit within its universe of necessary evils and chaos that its characters are meant to inhabit. At least Batman kept it all about the turmoil of Bruce Wayne, Iron Man 3 seems happy to dismiss Stark's relationship and anxiety as fussy, uninteresting and easily micro managed by an 11 year old. That may not bother the cool kids or bean counters, but it gave me food for thought. 

Review: The Bourne Legacy

Year: 2012
Director: Tony Gilroy
Screenplay: Tony Gilroy, Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

Synopsis is here

My problem with The Bourne Legacy is that it's so interested in it's lofty themes, it completely forgets about getting the basics down. There's a kernel of a decent film which is lost amid a pool of lacklustre motivation, uninteresting characters and bland story. All that isn't supposed to matter because GUNFIGHTS AND CHASES. Unfortunately; we've seen all that before, with the first three Bourne films. Those films also had the decency to give you something tangible to hold on to while you rode the roller-coaster.

As I said before there are a few points of interest within The Bourne Legacy. One of them is the idea of soldiers being created with less remorse, making them more efficient killers in the field while losing the compassion that compasses their humanity. The film references this twice. Firstly; when a our new Jason Bourne, Alex Cross (Renner) meets another agent at a remote outpost, sent there because he "fell in love". Secondly in a admittedly impressive motorcycle chase sequence, an enemy agent grunt who is "tradestone with none of the inconsistency, appears and goes Terminator on our heroes. The idea that the genetic science that may have created Jason Bourne is now being used to zone out emotional capacities is something I would find fascinating in a movie, particularly in one like this in which does show some promise with dialogue that doesn't feel like it's been processed for teenagers. Placing a pharmaceutical company the way the film does as the antagonist also gives the film a 70's thriller vibe and maturity that you may not get with your vampire hunters or even Avengers.

Problems arises however, when you realise that Alex Cross is just not Jason Bourne and the so called legacy looms large over the entire project. We are told every early on by an uninterested Edward Norton, to forget about Jason Bourne. But Bourne's search for his identity (as well as his humanity) give him a clear purpose. Here; we're given a bland goal of having to get "chems" or else. This wouldn't be a problem if Cross was a character worth following. The same goes for the antagonists chasing him down. There seems to be little at stake for everyone involved. Whatever stake that is negated, doesn't feel worth bothering about.

The film doesn't make good on its terms, starting very slowly, almost to the point of tedium, before wandering aimlessly (the middle being punctuated with well structured but ultimately meaningless action set pieces) and finishing abruptly, with the main narrative being nowhere as interesting as the subtext the film mentioned. Renner and Weisz sell their roles well but I found myself constantly arguing the point of the whole thing with myself. When you do that, your not enjoying the movie.

Review: Arena

Year: 2011 (U.K Release 2012)
Director; Jonah Loop
Screenplay: Tony Giglio
Starring: Kellan Lutz, Samuel L Jackson

Synopsis is here:

Arena reminds me once again; that while Samuel L Jackson can make Quentin words sing, give him the cash and he'll be in damn near anything. Yes, the world's highest grossing actor certainly knows how to pick his movies. One look at his filmography; details a man whose done nearly everything and worked with damn near everyone. Yes, he made it big with Tarantino, but look further back to see him on projects with the likes of Milo Foreman, Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Phillip Noyce. Leap past 1993 (Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park) and see the list of notable names continue, Paul Thomas Anderson, Steven Sodenbergh, William Friedkin to name a few. A true elitist snob may sneer at such a populist line up but to a man whose favourite film is House Party, the list is pretty impressive. So impressive, that it's a shame to see Jackson lend his name  t a film that can't be bothered to name him in the opening credits.


It's not like Arena makes a secret of Jackson's involvement. His face is smugly plastered on the cover of the DVD (or lovefilm download), he's the first famous face you see within the film (first two minutes) and he's certainly credited at the end of the film. But no, the "bad motherfucker" gives away his name sake for Kellan Lutz, as this appear to be a vehicle for him. That's pretty good going, considering Jackson stood firm on his wish for a purple lightsabre. 


I've blathered about Jackson for two reasons, the first being that Jackson's performance is the best thing about Arena. The second reason is quite simply for a man of such considerable talent and presence (his performance as a crack addict in Jungle Fever is really something) I find it astonishing that Jackson is willing to grace his presence in something so tepid. 


Arena looks like it wants to update The Running Man premise in the similar way that the risible Gamer wished to. Now with the Internet so open and uncensored to everyone, the film's main conceit is that an illegal gladiator style combat arena would thrive due to the lack of restriction the Internet has. The idea isn't new, and similar threads can be found in the likes of Hostel, The Hunger Games or the aforementioned Gamer.


The problem with Arena is that it trite, corny, unexciting and not at all interesting in the slightest. Does it want to be a satire? If so then it's not sharp enough. Show masses of people garnered around to watch such death games is one thing, but when the images are so dislocated from the rest of the film, they give no true contribution. Wow, college kids watch graphic content on the Internet. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the film didn't just show us such scenes, for the sake of showing it. It postures and pretends to comment but literally has nothing to say. 


That's fine, so then does the film wish to be a proper vehicle for it's twilight star Lutz? Possibly, but it doesn't show him in a great light. It may be some of the mealy mouthed dialogue that he has to spout, but it could also be due to the fact that Lutz himself doesn't stand out despite being in every scene of the film. Out of the four other films I've seen, in which he featured, he has made little to no impact. I do not remember him in those films and despite his model looks, he does nothing to change my feelings for him as a performer. Jackson tries to carry him but there's only so much energy one can give and scenes continuously fall flat. 

Does the film transpire to just a good old fashioned B-movie actioner? Well it exploits enough women to almost achieve this? Arena is a film in which women are either scheming (often naked) servants to the film's predictable plot/shirtless man, wordless prostitutes or teenage girls who are either hushed (because violence is more interesting) or mocked due to their dislike of graphic violence. The violence itself? Well would you rather watch a repetitive montage set to generic rock? Or would you rather watch The Raid? An action film should excite with it's set pieces despite other flaws, which this does not.

It could be easy to lash out at Arena because it's a video release (no theatrical) but Arena gets no love as it's a toothless bore. Those more versed in such action features will roll their eyes at it's cheesy, on rails plotline and be switched off by it's bog standard action. Every so often, you can find Samuel L "slumming it" in productions like this. But considering the movie star he is, it doesn't particularly matter. He can pick what he want and rake in billions with Marvel, this won't even make it as a footnote of his cinematic achievements.
 

British Film Bloggers Circle: Abusive Movie Comments.

"From racial abuse to death threats, it seems that having a view on a popular movie means personal attacks on your person is fair game. That’s right, you don’t like Transformers then you’re clearly a dumb nigger cunt bitch who should get killed."

I've posted a new article on abusive movie comments on the British Film Bloggers Circle. Click the quote above to view.

Review: The Avengers

Year: 2012
Director: Joss Whedon
Screenplay: Zak Penn, Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downley Jr, Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddlestone, Scarlett Johannson, Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L Jackson

Synopsis is here:

Ploughing through my grammatically dubious past reviews (seriously, the grammar Nazis must have a field day before never returning), it's clear to see that my thoughts about Marvel's studio adventures were mostly entertaining, yet consistently preoccupied. My enjoyment of the various entries have ebbed and flowed for an assortment of reasons. However, the element that stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, is the common knowledge that all these features are accumulating to something grander in scale.

This has lead us to a series of relatively fun jaunts which are sorely lacking at points. We've come to a very peculiar point in cinema in which the executives are now so invested in future projects that the first features are pushing sequels, way beyond a cheeky hint or odd nod. It seems that back stories and plot points are now being made even more verge than ever before, due to the desire for the audience double dip.

This brings us to The Avengers*, a film which aims to be the actual fruit of all the other labour, the definition to the large amount of Marvel input. It's hard not to feel a little duped by the "in-complete" feel of the previous entries. However, even before the end of the first act, any ill feeling begin to subside.

Simply put; for me, The Avengers delivers, in spades. Joss Whedon doesn't give us a "game-changer" or whatever new hyperbolic label being haphazardly thrown about recently. In fact Whedon's ingredient for success is to par everything down back to basics. True, the use of story and character has been bolstered somewhat by the previous films and yet The Avengers works on it's own as Whedon has boiled every character down to their essence, balanced the screen time and grown the film around them.

Liberties with it's introductions and the script has small issues (some awkward info-dumps) with some of the intricacies of it's admittedly silly plot (lets not fool ourselves that the tesseract macguffin is any more advanced than a certain allspark). The difference here between Whedon's Avengers and many of the others blockbusters that have passed, is that here, he and Penn (writing credits to X-men) really utilises the knowledge of the world these characters inhabit. The screenplay knows what makes these heroes tick and allows them to grow organically. From the humour of the characters to the action sequences, it all stems from a good understanding of not only the material, but character itself.

Let's take the villian of Loki (Hiddlestone) for example, who has bloomed from a Commodus-lite snivelling creature to a presence of Machiavellian reverence. Hiddlestone's Loki now has the same self arrogant swagger as Whedon's Mayor, but now he is a fully formed creation.  This villain, like The Joker, isn't simply a faceless alien or a generic spy antagonist but a character given an intricate agenda. Not just one born from a lazy wish for power, but sourced from a fractured family relationship only started in the first film. Such elements are examined and expanded with a deftness of touch, which has been sorely missing from a few blockbusters.

But that's what the pens (well keyboards...possibly tablets?) of Pen and Whedon bring to proceedings. Their focus the actual people inside the frame helps highlight the spectacle. What we are given is action driven through characters as opposed to empty effects. In a world in which we're consistently being being thrown bigger effects in a shallow effort to make us believe that bigger (and louder) is better, The Avengers works because it's creators simply go back to what made blockbusters so memorable in the first place. We share their plight, see their fears and flaws, pompous as this may sound, Whedon quite simply, has given these heroes their humanity.

Joss Whedon has grown and matured as a feature film director. The Avengers carries much of his writing quips and visual style, but while the Serenity was a little raw and still that cult feel (though a favourite of mine), here we have a boarder appeal but at no expense of entertainment. The humour is just as colourful as the film itself but it's is not at the sacrifice of the characters. It's not shoehorned or misplaced, quite the opposite.  The Avengers channels its spectacle through emotion and character as opposed to flashing blatant brand recognition and explosions (although that stuff is clearly within the film). Whedon is slowly crafting his own style of film action (those short sharp zooms were seen in Serenity). And while the set pieces aren't the strongest I've seen, the simple fact that sections are tailored to suit the characters personalties effectively makes a huge difference. I will say however, that the film suffers from a horrible infliction the proceeds so many of it's type. I found myself questioning the dubious power levels that these people have. The super powers of these beings seem to fluctuate for when the story accuires. I'm sure an actual comic book fan would be able to "set me straight", however it's that issue which reminds me why I favour the likes of Batman.

Slight frustrations aside, The Avengers is what I want from a summer movie. Whedon's film manages to mine the charisma found in the comics and place it on screen. We have an odd balance in play, in which, what we know about the characters from the previous entries gives us a certain level of depth and knowledge, and yet The Avengers gives enough space and time to allow these characters to mature further. I am still, in all honestly, wondering about the dodgy mechanics of Loki using his silly power cube to bring about the Gears of War reject army and story does feel dumb. But like a good summer movie should, I rolled with the punches because the emotion behind the motivations are there. The performances (standouts are Hiddlestone and Ruffalo, the humour and knock around tone washed away my issues. The Avengers has laid down the Summer gauntlet, I hope it starts as it means to go on.

*I simply refuse to call the film by it's stupid name change. The only good thing that alteration has provided, is making sure I get U.K cinema listings as opposed to U.S ones in Google.