"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. 

"Man of Steel" Is No "Superman Returns," for Better or Worse...

Directed by Zack Snyder, written by David S. Goyer, story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan, starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburn, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, and Michael Shannon - Rated PG-13

 

The Kurgan is not a fan of humanity, but even he didn't kill this many people with his collateral damage...

 

 

 

 

Superman has had a rough (and strange) go of it in Hollywood over the years.  The promising start in the late 70s quickly fizzled out into arguably one of the worst movies ever made with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  In 2006, the franchise was revisited with Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer’s ode to the Richard Donner films. Returns was a critical and commercial success but somehow was not good enough to spark the franchise.  So here we are again with Man of Steel, a, for lack of a better word, grittier and more sci-fi influenced entry.  My gut reaction to this new version from Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is positive.  Man of Steel is a big, action-packed summer movie and it never slows down during its lengthy 140+ minute running time.  So if you want the short review, quit reading after this paragraph.  Man of Steel is worth the price of admission.  Now, if you want to know how it stacks up in the series (or you’ve seen it and you want to see if we agree or disagree about certain elements), keep reading, because that’s a trickier issue.

 

I referred to Man of Steel as a “gritty” movie above, and that’s a good starting point.  I didn’t want to use that word because it has become so unoriginal in modern cinema.  Gone are the days of a hero wearing a costume simply because that’s what he wore in the comic books.  Now we need a “realistic” hero that wears a uniform almost solely for its utility.  I’m actually okay with this approach if done correctly.  The best example of this is the recent series of Batman films.  I just don’t think this is completely necessary for every hero.  Superman has always been that squeaky clean hero (he still is, for the most part) that stood apart from the rest.  Man of Steel does not make Superman stand apart in the cinematic world; he is on the same level as Batman.  That’s not a bad place to be, but it’s not a different place, either. 

 

The grittiness of Man of Steel isn’t that major of a problem, and a squeaky clean version might have been a disaster.  But I can’t help but look back on Superman Returns and think that that is Superman done right.  No big deal, though; if I want that version of Superman, I have a DVD player. 

 

Man of Steel’s more realistic look is simply awesome, however.  Zack Snyder and his team (including Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan serving as a producer) have crafted detailed and interesting worlds.  From a purely visual standpoint, this film is far and above the best of the series.  That goes for the action as well.  While some of the sequences bordered on exhaustion, they were all impressive and showcased both Superman’s and his enemies’ incredible power.  That showcase of power might leave you feeling a little troubled, though (more on that later). 

 

Great action and visuals can be enough for some people (it certainly goes a long way for me) because of the entertainment value therein, but the casting of Superman and his opponent can also make or break a film like this.  Henry Cavill (Immortals) does a great job as both Clark Kent and Superman.  He is believable, looks natural in the uniform, and, most importantly, he’s likable.  Michael Shannon as General Zod is equally impressive.  I’ve been a fan of Shannon’s for years, but this is most likely the first time many viewers have seen him in a major role (although fans of HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” are already aware of his talent).  Shannon brings his usual intensity to the role.  This is an actor who can convey so much with a stare.  He’s not going to get an Oscar nomination or anything like that, but at least Man of Steel will showcase his talents to a larger audience.  The rest of the cast is just as strong, just in more limited capacities.  Amy Adams turns in yet another good performance as Lois Lane.  Russell Crowe holds the first twenty minutes of the film so well that I almost wished that had been its own movie.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner provide the emotional impact of the film, most notably Costner in some scattered fatherly advice scenes (perfect timing, by the way, releasing this film on Father’s Day weekend).  Maybe it’s the memories of the father-son moments from Field of Dreams, but I found his scenes to be very effective.  And Laurence Fishburne provides some much-needed comic relief as Perry White, the editor of the Daily Planet.

 

I haven’t mentioned the plot yet because, well, it’s not terribly important to a film like this.  Like most, if not all, superhero movies, the safety of the entire world is at stake.  General Zod wants to turn Earth into a different planet that can sustain life for his nearly extinct race, and Superman must stop him.  Pretty simple, really.  Although there are quite a few moments and elements that might confuse you, it isn’t that big of a deal because it’s all done so well.  Of course, if you don’t care for the movie, then nitpicks about character motivation and inconsistencies will bother you much more.  I enjoyed the movie enough to lose focus on those elements and say, “Well, it is a comic book movie…”

 

Man of Steel does stretch a bit into the science fiction world, though, and that might be an issue for some.  I was surprised by how far into Krypton the movie went.  The portion of the film that takes place on Krypton is actually my favorite part, so I was definitely okay with seeing this new world and its technology brought to life.  It might be too much for some viewers.  But hey, The Avengers had an alien invasion and that was popular, so maybe audiences in general dig sci-fi more than I give them credit for.

 

The alien element in general was fine with me, but whenever a powerful enemy to earth is introduced, destruction must take place.  In the past, superhero movies were mainly about preventing death and destruction.  Now, it seems like killing unseen thousands (maybe millions) of people in a film is okay.  Not to spoil anything, but mass amounts of a large city are destroyed in this film, and it’s ridiculous to imagine that everyone made it out safely.  Multiple skyscrapers topple to the ground, yet we only see Superman get upset about humans dying when he has to actually see people in harm’s way.  I know that the audience doesn’t technically see any death happening in these action sequences, but anyone who thinks about it a little is bound to be troubled by what is happening off camera in these scenes.  I don’t know…I know these summer movies have to keep upping the ante with the destruction, but it leaves a bad aftertaste when that destruction involves buildings filled with innocent people.  This is where that “It’s just a comic book movie” line should help me out, but this part was just too much.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that I like the Superman of Superman Returns a little more.  There was less collateral damage in that film, and it’s a feel-good movie, which is what a Superman film should be like.  Man of Steel is cooler, more action-packed, and more entertaining, but it doesn’t feel any different from all the rest of the superhero/summer movies out there.  This is not to say it’s a bad film.  I’m glad I watched it, and I plan on buying it on video and watching it many times again.  It’s just that it didn’t blow me away.  Perhaps this is simply a result of hype.  Man of Steel is the movie of the summer, what with all of the random product tie-ins (“Try the Super Bacon Burger at Hardee’s!  And be sure to check out Man of Steel!”).  I just got my hopes up way too high.  So I didn’t love Man of Steel.  I merely liked it…a lot.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is just a comic book movie, after all.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

As always, the IMDb boards are a minefield of lovers and haters of the film, and they've covered any complaints I might have with the film.  But I still feel like airing some of my grievances here.

 

I had no clue if the Kryptonians were automatically superhuman when they got to earth or if they had to be exposed to the air.  I know that Zod changes when his mask is off, but the others who weren't exposed still seemed to possess Superman strength.  So was it the suits?  It's not that big of a deal because all the fights would suck if Superman just knocked them out with one punch, but it still left me a bit confused.

 

The biggest question I had after the movie was over was why Lois Lane was asked to board Zod's ship.  Someone on the boards said that it was because she could lead them to the codex.  I'll have to watch it again to see if that's ever stated or implied, but at the moment it seemed like she was just there to make sure Superman got out of a jam and he would've been screwed had she not been there. 

 

Speaking of the codex, all that business of genetic engineering and no natural births on Krypton had to be explained a bit too quickly, which is why I would love to see more of the story from Krypton.  That first part of the film is great, but soooooo much is going on that I feel like I need to watch it a few more times to pick up on everything. 

 

Back to the destruction.  Between this and Star Trek into Darkness, I've seen millions of people killed this summer.  I just don't understand why skyscrapers and entire cities have to be demolished in all of these movies.  Is everyone drinking the Roland Emmerich Kool-aid? 

 

I was hoping the whole Clark Kent wears glasses and Superman doesn't gimmick wouldn't come into play with this incarnation, but I guess some things are sacred.  Can't take Batman out of the Batcave, right?  (Although that facility he was in in The Dark Knight wasn't much of a cave, per se, and people love that one more than all of the others...but whatever.)  I just figured they would abandon that because it's supposed to be a bit more realistic.  I mean, it took Lois a day or two to figure it out?  How hard could it be to identify him in this world they have created?  At least make Superman grow a beard or something when he's Kent.  Speaking of which, anyone else notice that when Clark saw the suit in the ship he had stubble, but he was clean-shaven the very next scene as he was flying around?  So can he grow and discard facial hair at will?  Was there a Bic on the spaceship?  (Or a Gillette?  Is that the tie-in for this?)  All joking aside, there should be more to it than just glasses and a slightly different hairstyle.  If everything else gets the gritty new realistic upgrade, then this aspect should too.

 

Finally, just because I prefer Returns doesn't mean I think Routh is a better Superman.  (Honestly, the goofiness of Returns and Kevin Spacey's performance is what put me over the edge.)  I think both Routh and Cavill are great as Superman in their respective films, but neither would work as well in the other film.  Routh is better for the goofy Clark Kent stuff while Cavill makes for a more believable powerhouse.  Perhaps Cavill could work in Returns, but no way would Routh fit in Man of Steel.