Review: The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Screenplay: Joss Whedon

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here:

I found Age of Ultron to be a bit of an oddity. It’s a film in which, like a Chris Nolan feature, piles on a heavy amount of exposition and characters explaining themselves in the simplest of terms. Yet when watching the likes of Inception (2010) or The Dark Knight Rises (2012), I always find myself quite satisfied with those film’s final acts. I found myself befuddled by the last third of Age of Ultron. Near the very Tony Stark devises an improvised plan to save the world, and the other Avengers comply and react accordingly. Yet once our heroes put the plan into action, I can’t say I was able to follow it.

It’s difficult to explain. I “got” what was happening in the overall sense. However, I found myself staring at the screen glassy eyed through most of the film's finale. Then again, I felt that for much of the films slightly clunky action set pieces. I never fully got with the rhythm of the film. Joss does well to balance Age of Ultron as much as he can. This is no simple task. Whedon does manage to inform the movie with a decent sense of scale (it certainly feels bulkier and more substantial than the other Phase Two features). However, the vast array of characters and the tricky issue of what to do with them all, is starting to show. I’m not surprised the film concludes in the way it does.

All this makes it sounds like I sat in the cinema with a permanent grimace on my face. Far from it. Age of Ultron excels in its character beats and developments. Whedon’s screenplay gives the likes of Thor permission become more ponderous and investigative. Hawkeye is allowed to become the human heart at the center of the team. An unlikely romance blossoms between characters and it’s not only the most remarkable element, but also the sweetest. I’m not surprised that Whedon’s character beats are the most effective aspects of the film. As someone who limited their consumption of film’s buzz and marketing to only the trailers, it didn’t shock me in the slightest that the quieter, less excitable scenes, are the ones I was drawn to.

Whedon’s sense of humour has not succumbed to the same fatigue I’ve had for superhero movies as whole (thanks constant hype!). The screenplay's punchlines and witticisms push the film along at a lively pace. Whedon also gets the best out of the cast. Both returning and newcomers. Elizabeth Oslon (Scarlet Witch) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Quicksilver) gives far more ample performances than they did in Godzilla (2014). Original heroes Pine, Downley Jr and Ruffalo, all come out the blocks fighting. Johansson, Hemsworth and Renner have the chance to show the most growth and do so with gusto. James Spader gives a delightfully quirky performance as Ultron, the A.I. with a god complex. As with Avengers Assemble (2012), Marvel’s most entertaining villains appear to be saved for this sector of its cinematic universe.

It’s a shame that the film’s narrative buckles under the sheer weight of everyone involved. I’ve not mentioned all the returning supporting cast, new characters and other characters who’ve appeared in other Marvel films and are returning. Everyone is fighting for space and it shows. Two major plot revelations occur and did little to elevate the heartbeat. It doesn’t help that every blog and film site did their best to eliminate any element of surprise. However, there’s just not enough time for everyone to breathe. I’m sure there’s a few comic fans who are happy to see everyone stuffed into the films 141 minutes. But I did find myself contemplating how well established, some characters were compared to others. After reading just how hard Whedon worked in the cutting of the film to give it a sense of order, you realise just how well he’s done to keep all the plates spinning.

Yep. It still sounds like I have too many misgivings. But honestly, watching Iron Man don hulkbusting amour and go toe to toe with the green giant is a huge bunch of fun. As is the musings of Ultron in general. There’s still much to unpack in Age of Ultron. It does seem that I’ll be leaving that to the hardcore fanboy audience. Age of Ultron didn’t leave me with an immediate wish to watch it again like the first film. But I did leave with enough of a smile on my face. 

Review: The Lone Ranger

Year: 2013

Director: Gore Verbinski

Screenplay: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio

Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Barry Pepper, James Badge Dale, Helena Bonham Carter

Synopsis is here:

I often dislike when film-makers and actors “defend” their movie, by attacking critical responses. I’ve often said that critics can do little to affect blockbusters like these. Any proud causal film-goer will say: “I’ll make up my own mind” or “I don’t need to be told what to watch” and it’s a somewhat true point.  That said, The Lone Ranger is a bit of an anomaly in this age of comic book branded blockbusters. Originally a radio play, the franchise’s most popular period was in the forties. Since then; a few cinematic and television adaptations have been tried, none have been successful.

The fact is, modern day westerns are not known for their financial potential, while the character of The Lone Ranger is not well known to those who fall into that golden age bracket that all studios are aiming for. The film-makers must have known what a risk they were taking. A $200+ million film in a genre which has had its fair share of problems in the modern age (find me five truly profitable westerns in the last 20 years); in a packed holiday season with better “known” franchises and characters. Of course...it’s easy to blame the writers.

However, I must say that the amount of venom over The Lone Ranger is; in my eyes, quite bemusing. Gore Verbinski has never been a director I’d line up around the block for and The Lone Ranger was never on my list of must sees, especially after the muddlesome Pirate sequels. Yet The Lone Ranger, for all its production and budgetary issues, is far more entertaining than it should be. Much like the much maligned John Carter, we have a film with its heart in the right place. It’s just a pity that said heart is hidden by the silver spoon that’s placed in its mouth.

Much of this is due to the film’s director, Gore Verbinski. Despite my misgivings about quite a few of his movies, Verbinski is craftsman who not only feels comfortable with large scale projects, but someone who enjoys that old fashioned flair of the films of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger continues Verbinski’s affinity for the traditional with a film that lovingly touches on the Westerns of the past. The films of John Ford and Sergio Leone are tactfully acknowledged while the story themes noted should remind fans of some of the time honoured classics that have come before.

Ironically, the oft mentioned budget is better handled than you may think. Not only is The Lone Ranger is at times beautifully crafted in its design, but it holds a type physicality that can only stem from a long list of stunt men as opposed to a large team of CGI designers. The film nearly turns itself into Meta commentary as many of the films elements become a metaphor of mainstream film making itself. The rise and fall build of the films thrilling action sequences and their practicality, its wholehearted lead and the genre itself are slowly becoming as mystical as the old west.  Much like John Carter (and Captain America for that matter), this is the kind of Sunday afternoon film that is slowly being replaced with the angst-ridden, constantly destructive, semi-anti heroes that are now more popular.

That said, those heroes often have better scripts and The Lone Ranger’s fussy plot and uneven pacing cause it to constantly trip over itself. Things like Tonto’s backstory and framing device (involving an aged Tonto telling the Rangers story to a child) are more thoughtful than you’d expect, touching upon the sad plight of the Native American against white America’s own desires. One of the film’s opening moments has an aged Tonto spooking the child. Watch the kid’s first reaction.  However; such moments are often too few and far between, and the films first hour is slow and extraneous. The needless double crosses of the pirate films are happily nowhere to be seen, but the films running time in contrast with the narrative content is at odds. Sorry to sound like a Total Film web list but I don’t believe the film needs to be as long as it is.

Such aspects take away from the fact that Armie Hammer is a more engaging straight man than Orlando Bloom and that Jonny Depp’s shtick isn’t too bad here.  Arguments about the films graphic content are understandable but seem minor in comparison to more successful material that have played with the edge far worse. There’s brevity about The Lone Ranger that makes it far more interesting than the external arguments about its cost. As annoying is it is seeing its stars blast critics for not “getting it”, I must say I can see why they’re mad. No one seemed to want to note the ambition. But then again, DVD’s haven’t left us yet. So there’s still time for the home audience.

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

Year: 2011
Director: Joe Johnston
Screenplay: Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci

Synopsis is here:

Captain America brought a warming sensation to me after I watched it. Here is a movie that is just as earnest as Tree of Life, but this is no art-house feature. No, this is a comic book movie in which you'd think some audiences  are probably getting slightly tired of seeing. There's the origin story here, the fresh faced hero there and everything else that comes pre packaged with these marvel flicks.

The interesting prospect here is that this not only a film that feels more well rounded than some of it's brothers and sisters (although it clearly has an eye on the upcoming avengers movie next year), but the films innocence in it's portrayal of it's character and the telling of his plight is so fresh at a time where we're now seeing all our heroes being "dark" "gritty" and more importantly, cynical. I won't be surprised if the biggest defenders of the Transformers movies sneer at the old fashioned aw shucks nature of the Capts exploits, but there's something joyfully upstanding seeing this heroes pluck over the wise ass antics of Sam Witwicky or even The Dark Knights angst.

The reason the film work for me is that the storytelling, set pieces and cast were as straight forward as the Captain himself. It's a shame that the spectacle aren't as big or memorable as one would have hoped, but that's not really the point. Here we're given a righteous and mature hero who is willing to pull us through his adventure. His guts are what makes the character raise above so many of the reluctant protagonists that have plodded through their tales, generally being told what to do and how to do it. The fact that Captain America places his life in his own hands as much as he does is invigorating. It helps that Chris Evans' honest and hopeful portrayal of the character is one that Henry Cavill and the DC camp may do well with pinching. Evans sells truth, justice and the american way well. He also sells some decent chemistry with the spunky Hayley Atwell whose role of love interest is part of her but doesn't define her (compare her character to poor Blake Lively's in Green Lantern) . Although she and the some of the supporting cast (a criminally wasted Neal McDonough) don't get enough time to truly show themselves off.

It is a shame that despite all the good that the Capt does, with the wonderful sepia toned 1940's setting and Joe Johnston's pulpy execution of it all, that the Captain's villain isn't as villainous as he is virtuous. Due to the Captain's commitments to The Avengers movie we get an evil doer whose more of a figurehead than a fully formed character.The Red Skull has the right look and actor (A delectably scene chewing Weaving) behind him but hardly any anything else. We sense Captain Americas heart and by the films last words I was right behind him However will it comes to the evil he has to face I was severely underwhelmed. I understand that this is the beginnings of a regime that should be more evil than the Nazis, but why don't we see it? They have the power but there's very little demonstration. But then I say this about a film that has two montages of Captain America  in action to substitute more intricate set pieces. Why? Because Capt's big film will be The Avengers. With such a cloud looming over the film we see a Captain America film that shoots from the hip but is also streamlined due to other commitments.

It seems that much of what Matt Singer (IFC) says is right. Marvel seem far to bothered about what's next to truly invest on the singular efforts. This is not to say that Captain America isn't good. It's bold, brash, old serial way of film making is refreshing and fun and I can't say I didn't leave with a smile on my face (I even didn't mind it in 3D and that says a lot)  The problem is Marvels constant Brand pushing short changes a film which is entertaining on its own right.  Unfortunately the movie is held back from truly being the best it can be. Captain America himself, really would expect more.