"Age of Ultron" Is a Blatant Attack on the DC Movies...Oh, and It's Pretty Fun To Watch, Too.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Reviews of movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) are fairly pointless. Every entry in the series ends up being a huge hit and fans (both hardcore and casual) and critics tend to be pleased with them. That said, I can't resist reviewing the movie slightly, but then I want to focus more on one aspect that stuck out to me more than most. But first, the review.

                                                       

Avengers: Age of Ultron has some big shoes to fill, and it succeeds. It's not better than the first one, but it isn't noticeably worse, either. “Ultron” has some amazing action set pieces, humor, and set up for the future movies. In other words, it's very good Marvel movie. It is getting increasingly harder to keep up with what's going on with each character, but the self-aware humor of the film keeps things more fun than confusing.

Age of Ultron handles the even larger cast of characters as deftly as the first film...in fact, this is the rare sequel that truly feels like a continuation of the first film. Perhaps that will underwhelm people because Ultron does not up the stakes all that much and the villain isn't much better or worse than Loki in the first film. Of course, how do you raise the stakes when the world gets saved in the MCU every few months?

Speaking of the villain, Ultron, the evil, titular robot bent of destroying all humans so the next stage of evolution can occur, is surprisingly non-threatening and, even more surprisingly, funny. Perhaps it's James Spader's natural performance to inject some snark into the character, but Ultron's scenes played more for laughs than tension. Which is refreshing, since Marvel is the go-to for feel-good superhero movies about the potential destruction of the planet.

The humor of Ultron was not the only surprise of the film. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is given a lot more to do and actually serves as the emotional core of the film. This is interesting since some fans (like me) question why the guy with the bow and arrow is even involved. It helps that writer-director Joss Whedon anticipates this and gives Hawkeye a line pointing out the absurdity of it all. It's a testament to Whedon that Hawkeye felt like an equal on the team rather than an oddity.

All this makes it sound like Ultron is lesser than the first film, but it is simply equal. It just lacks that “wow” factor that the first film had since the buildup was so many years in the making. Ultron isn't the event the first film was; it's a sequel.

Speaking of events, Age of Ultron was slightly overshadowed in the comic book world by the release of a preview for Batman v Superman, DC Comics' set up for the Avengers-esque Justice League movie. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but Age of Ultron seems to be the anti-DC movie. Man of Steel featured more destruction than your typical action movie, and it is assumed that millions of people died as a result of the climactic battle of that film. Age of Ultron is very focused on the safety of civilians throughout. To be fair, Marvel films always try to keep things destructive and fun, but this time it seemed much more blatant. Iron Man scans a building to make sure no one is in it before he destroys it. The heroes are more worried about saving a few thousand people instead of the entire world. (SPOILER) A single civilian's life is saved at the expense of a hero. Pretty much every action scene near the end of the film involves saving (typically offscreen) lives.

What does this have to do with DC? First, it seems to be a direct response to the wanton destruction of Man of Steel (among other blockbuster action films). Second, this could be the defining difference between the two series: Marvel wants to save everyone and have a good time; DC wants to save most of the people, pointing out that even the greatest heroes can't save everyone and sacrifices are a necessary part of the superhero world. Marvel is the light-hearted optimist to cynical DC. (Unless it turns out that Batman is actually fighting Superman because of all that destruction, which would be cool with me, but weaken my point...)

To be fair, this has been the case the entire time between Marvel and DC movies. Avengers: Age of Ultron doesn't break new ground; it solidifies it. The MCU is a movie empire that will continue on its impressive course as the stories get bigger and better and lead to (a hopefully) satisfying conclusion in a few years before everything is inevitably rebooted. Ultron was a slight question mark in the MCU. It proves that each subsequent film can be as good as the last, and that's comforting when you see the slate of movies planned for the next 4 years (though some rumors say there are plans through 2028). Marvel will be a dependable good time at the theater for the foreseeable future.

Avengers: Age of Ultron receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Now that Joss Whedon is telling everyone how compromised his vision of this film is it seems that the loud internet audience bashing this sequel have some evidence for their claims that the film is a mess. For the record, I don't care if a director bashes a film that I enjoy. That doesn't change my opinion. Also for the record, Whedon isn't bashing the film so much as he is airing some grievances about what it might have been. When I look at his comments about Thor's deleted subplot, however, it does make me look at the film a bit more harshly. (Final for the record, I wrote the review itself before I read Whedon's comments, so I felt the need to address a few things here.)

The only thing I want to mention in direct relation to Whedon's comments is Thor. While watching the movie, I remember wondering what the hell that "Pool of Knowing" or whatever was that Thor went to to have his vision. I wrote it off thinking it would be explained later, but then he literally reappears out of nowhere to bring Vision to life. After that, the final action sequence begins, and I stopped wondering about that pool. But now that I have read Whedon's comments, that scene sticks out like a sore thumb for me. Whedon has pulled back the curtain, and it has me questioning the MCU all over again.

I had issues with recent Marvel movies (aside from Guardians of the Galaxy since that film [at the moment] is fairly removed from this world) being too busy setting up other movies rather than telling their own stories. As it turns out, they are way too worried about setting up other movies, but the action and general good time of each film tends to overshadow that. This was the case with Ultron, but now I wonder about every *shudder* plot hole people bring up. It is annoying that within this universe a character can suddenly be in an unexplained mystical pool (which will be revealed in more detail in his next standalone film), or a character can show up with a before-never-mentioned helicarrier to transport innocent people to safety (which will be explained on the TV spinoff series in the coming weeks). This was a small problem when the first film came out, but it seems that as the universe gets bigger, the loose ends will continue to branch out into other movies and shows. I get that it's a "Universe," but even someone as dorky as me can get exhausted by the endless setup. (Case in point, I bailed on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. after only a few episodes.)

All that said, I still really enjoyed Age of Ultron. Now for more random thoughts.

Quicksilver was surprisingly better than I expected, although I still like the version (goofy looking as he is) from Days of Future Past. Good call on killing him off since another version of him exists in another franchise...

I don't know how to feel about Vision. I'm glad that Paul Bettany has a larger role now, but Vision looks kind of goofy. Also, that team at the end of the movie isn't too awe-inspiring: Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Captain America, Falcon, War Machine, and Vision. They're powerful, sure, but I like a bit more name-recognition on my superhero teams. 

"The Avengers"

Directed Joss Whedon, written by Whedon and Zak Penn, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, and Samuel L. Jackson - Rated PG-13

Captain America: And Hulk...Smash!

This is the comic book movie people have been waiting for.  Anticipation is high for any big name comic book property adaptation (for instance, we still have The Dark Knight Rises on the way), but The Avengers is unique because it is so unlikely.  Take some of the heaviest hitters from the Marvel universe (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, etc.) and combine them in one huge movie.  The fact that a studio was able to plan this out after each character had his own film produced is impressive.  But The Avengers doesn’t skate by on the simple existence of itself; instead it soars up there in the higher echelons because it is one of the most enjoyable action films in years.

The Avengers was always a project I was on the fence about.  I’ve always been more of an X-Men and Batman fan, so the crew of this film didn’t excite me all that much.  On top of that, I had doubts that a big studio could come up with a storyline that managed to balance all of the personalities of the film, both in character and out.  How do you justify a scene between relatively unknown characters like Loki and Black Widow when you could just have The Hulk and Thor duke it out for a half an hour?  Why have a scene with Clark Gregg and Jeremy Renner when you can have Robert Downey, Jr. talk smack to Samuel L. Jackson? 

Surprisingly, the filmmakers (writer/director/geek god Joss Whedon and writer Zak Penn) found the perfect balance of star power and character moments.  I cannot come up with a gripe along those lines.  I felt that each actor and character was given just the right amount of screen time.  This is most likely because of Whedon’s involvement (not to take away anything from Penn), but it is certainly because there are only two screenwriters on this film rather than half a dozen.  (I’m sure more than two writers took a crack at the script, but still, only having two credited writers is a good thing.)  Hollywood should take note: you don’t need a dozen writers to hash out a script.  Less can be more, especially when you’re dealing with so much. 

Speaking of balance, The Avengers also finds a great balance between action and comedy.  I cannot remember the last film I watched that had me glued to the action one moment and laughing aloud the next.  I don’t want to ruin any gags; I just want to point out that any joke situation I could think of among these vastly different characters was addressed and it was addressed well.  Thankfully, the film never delves into deadly serious territory (that’s what Batman is for), but instead keeps things light and entertaining. 

This is not simply a comedic action film, though.  The Avengers features some very exciting action sequences, whether it’s a fight amongst the team or a full-on intergalactic war.  The characters complement each other perfectly in battle.  As if it wasn’t already awesome to see Thor and The Hulk fight (both one-on-one and as teammates), the filmmakers managed to hit on every possible fanboy desire while also making the action compelling and easy to follow.  This applies to the entire film as characters have to work together and use their specific skill sets to help each other. 

It’s easy to forget that there are actors inhabiting these characters when you’re dealing with such an action-heavy, funny film; but if you stop and consider it, every actor does a fine job.  I don’t want to waste space and write an individual comment for every performance, especially since almost all involved have played these characters before.  Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth have their respective characters down and it’s a lot of fun to simply watch them talk to each other.  Lone newcomer Mark Ruffalo has some amusing moments as well as Bruce Banner, but it is the CG-enhanced Hulk version that is the real force behind the film. 

It’s not just that the CG Hulk actually looks like the actor portraying him (previous incarnations involving Eric Bana and Edward Norton tried to personalize the face, but failed); it’s that The Hulk has finally found a film formula that works.  First, he’s not just trying to free himself of his power this time around.  Second, The Hulk is so much more fun to watch when he’s only part of the crew.  As ironic as it is, The Hulk is just not capable of carrying his own film.  Throw him in with some other superheroes, though, and you wonder why his character isn’t as popular as the rest.  Just to be clear, though, I still think The Hulk is not right for a full feature film.  Perhaps they can work him into some of the other individual films to keep the audience sated until the next true Avengers film. 

If The Hulk is the bright spot in the line up of The Avengers, then baddie Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the weak point.  Nothing against Hiddleston, he does a fine job and is obviously having fun as the bad guy of the film, but the character of Loki pales in comparison to the iconic villains of other franchises.  This is hardly a major problem, though, especially when you’d rather spend all of your time with the heroes, anyway. 

The Avengers is nearly perfect in accomplishing what it sets out to do.  It’s a big budget movie that looks expensive.  It’s an action-comedy that provides thrilling set pieces and hilarious gags.  It’s a movie about a team that also seamlessly caters to each individual.  It might just be the best comic book movie ever made, if you’re judging it based on the sheer level of enjoyment it provides.  As of this writing, The Avengers has already broken box office records.  Part of that might be hype.  But a larger part is because The Avengers is simply a good movie.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Everything with Thor and The Hulk was simply awesome.  The Hulk unable to lift Mjolnir, Hulk punching Thor out of nowhere, etc.

I loved how the film acknowledged that some characters don't understand modern references.  My favorite moment was when Captain America spoke up after hearing "flying monkeys."  "I get it! I understood that reference..."

"The Cabin in the Woods"

Directed by Drew Goddard, written by Joss Whedon and Goddard, starring Kristen Conolly, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz, Bradley Whitford, and Richard Jenkins - Rated R

Why wasn't the Evil Kurgan on the whiteboard?  Too hardcore?

All of the talk of The Cabin in the Woods has been about critics and fans spoiling the film.  First off, the movie has been out for a few days now, so it’s pointless for me to repeat the spoiler warning crap, though I will say that the best way to see this film is with as little knowledge about it as possible.  So you should stop reading if you truly want to enjoy it (though it’s always been my opinion that reviews are best read after a viewing anyway).  The spoiler issue is misleading, though, because it sets up the movie as some twist ending ordeal, and that is not the case at all.  The film lets you in on the concept immediately, so there is no twist in the traditional sense.  If there’s anything that people should be saying to drum up interest in this film, it’s this: “Do you love horror films?  Are you tired of how predictable they are?  Watch this then.” 

The Cabin in the Woods is certainly something new for horror and it’s pretty fantastic.  It takes a cliché setup (college kids go to a secluded cabin only to be terrorized and/or killed) and does something special with it.  I’ve seen this scenario dozens of times it seems and it’s become so predictable that the storyline has turned into background music.  Now, to keep things fresh you get films like Tucker and Dale vs. Evil that play with the scenario.  What makes Cabin special is the fact that the film doesn’t just poke fun at the genre and turn into goofy nonsense.  This is still a horror movie for horror fans and the more well-versed you are in the genre, the more fun you will have. 

The only foreseeable problem with this type of film is the viewer not being in on the joke.  The advertising for the film has been condemned by many as selling the film as a traditional slasher flick.  I can’t comment on it because I made a point to avoid previews for the film.  I just knew from various websites that it was not your standard horror film, especially since geek god Joss Whedon was involved.  I can understand that a preview could be misleading, but if you do a little research, just a little, you can find out what type of film it’s going to be.  Okay, okay, I understand not everyone takes movie watching as serious as me.  I know there are people out there that don’t even know what they’re watching until they get to the cinema and look at the titles (you people are insane, by the way).  This is where the movie truly lets you know what it is, though.  It’s called The Cabin in the Woods!  The title itself is a joke about the overused location of the film.  No proper horror film would focus on the cliché aspects of it.  Did anyone get up in arms when the Scary Movie franchise debuted and the movies weren’t meant to be scary?  This is the same thing, only much geekier, smarter, and, arguably, funnier.

The intelligence of the film is debatable, though.  Some might argue that just because a film is aware of the clichés of its own genre does not make it smart.  I agree, but Cabin doesn’t just point them out, it embraces them and reinvigorates them.  The film features a typical slasher flick line up: the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the whore (Anna Hutchison), the nerd (Jesse Williams), the stoner (Fran Kranz), and the virgin (Kristen Connolly).  What’s great about this lineup is the fact that each of the characters has a stereotypical aspect (such as Hemsworth rocking a letterman’s jacket even though he’s a college student), yet they are still amusing on multiple levels.  It’s fun to watch these archetypes on a meta level realizing the joke is the fact that they are filling a typical role in a horror film.  There’s the added bonus that even though these characters are unoriginal, they are still much better written and funnier than any of their counterparts in a traditional horror film. 

Fran Kranz is the highlight as the stoner who also seems to be the only one paying attention to his surroundings.  He gives a strange delivery of his lines that makes him stand out over the typical stoner.  It helps that his dialogue is much wittier than most stoner dialogue.  Hemsworth was born to play the jock, no surprises there (he is Thor, after all).  And Kristen Connolly handles herself well as the heroine.  The two best performances, though, do not belong to any of the typical characters of a horror film, but rather to Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins. 

(Reminder, you should really just watch the movie.  If this review wasn’t SPOILERY enough already, it’s going to get much worse now.)

Whitford and Jenkins are absolutely hilarious as the two men overseeing the ritual to make sure everything goes to plan.  The matter-of-fact way they handle their grisly business is hilarious in the darkest sense.  A large part of their performances are simply the faces they make while they watch the events and though it would seem that cutting back to these two characters staring at a screen would get old after a couple times, it remains funny throughout. 

If it sounds like I’m just absolutely loving on this film it’s because I thought it completely accomplished what it set out to do.  The Cabin in the Woods is not only a send up of the horror genre, but also a fitting entry into it.  Not everyone will love this film, though, and some will probably hate it just for being what it is when they expected it to be a “normal” movie.  Cabin tries something different and is a standout film because of it.  I don’t want to oversell it, though.  Some people are throwing some major hyperbole at this film proclaiming it to be a “game changer” that will change horror films.  I don’t know about all that, but I do know I enjoyed the hell out of this movie and if you dig slasher flicks and have a sense of humor, you will, too.

Random Thoughts (even more SPOILERS)

I loved the whiteboard list of possible baddies.  I especially dug the reference to the Deadites from the Evil Dead series. 

Am I crazy or was that Joss Whedon at the after party?  I haven't come across any confirmation of this.  And it looks like he's wearing a leather bracelet like Thor would wear.  Maybe I am just crazy...

The Merman subplot was hilarious.  I really dug how Jenkins complaint about the mess came to fruition, as well.

Speaking of Jenkins, my god, isn't he awesome?  I could watch him curse at happy Japanese children for hours.

The Sigourney Weaver cameo was a bit lame.  Way too much like her cameo in Paul.