Brief Movie Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hey there Chaos fiends! Welcome back to the dreaded Chaos Corner. I have taken a bit of a break from 40K painting- I intend on resuming in the next two weeks. I've been busy lately- work stuff, and I got a shinny new Xbox One, so it has distracted me from my usual addiction. Fear not, as this is only temporary (I need to beat the very creepy game The Evil Within first). At any rate, I'm here to offer a brief review of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

First, I musty say- don't believe the naysayers. This movie is a blast, a ton of fun. Whether its better than the first Avengers (its DARN close) is debatable. Is it the best Marvel movie- no, that title belongs top Cap 2. The truth is Avengers 2 is an action packed movie with a good sense of humor.

I think the problem is expectations. After Avengers 1 and Cap 2, the expectations were sky high. Through the roof. Impossible to reach. I suspect that some who haven't enjoyed this movie simply kept comparing it to Avengers 1- and their DREAMS of Avengers 2 should be. It was never going to match that.

I must admit, the movie has flaws. It feels rushed in several areas- particularly with Ultron himself (who is fascinating but needed more time to develop). There were some beats that didn't quite work (Quicksilver). The movie also feels overstuffed with characters- they ALMOST manage to successfully juggle them, but they don't quite get it right (unlike Cap 2- when you think about it, that film has lots of major and minor characters, but they balance them very well). They dispense with some things far too quickly (von Strucker).

On the other hand, the film gets a ton right- more than enough to make up for its flaws. The team's chemistry remains spot on, and each of the Avengers gets a chance to shine at some point. The humor is also very sharp and witty. The action scenes are top notch- filled with excitement but never too much to follow. The movie (despite its 2 1/2 hour length) moves briskly. I was also very happy with how they handled Vision. I can't wait to see more of him. The movie also has a bigger scope, with the Avengers running to several nations to fight Ultron (Korea, Eastern Europe, "Wakanda"). Ultron was an impressive villain- a dark reflection of both Iron Man and Banner (I just wished we got more time with him).

So- I didn't give any spoilers, but I think Avengers 2 is a great movie- action, humor, good actors. Better than Avengers 1? Does it have to be? I don't know. I do know it was a fun time at the theater, and it certainly is strong enough to be in the Marvel Pantheon. For me, the Marvel films are fun, and I love watching them. But- they are not deep films. Certainly Nolan's Batman is deeper and more thought provoking- taking current issues and using them for comic book stories while also having emotional resonance. The only Marvel film that has done that is Cap 2- NSA / drone strikes along with the sinking feeling that Cap's fight against Fascism / Totalitarianism has not been won, rather it is only just begun. Its current, but also resonant emotionally. The rest of the Marvel films are fun affairs, and seeing these characters handled with such respect has been a pleasure for this former comic book collector.

If you like the Marvel films, go see Avengers 2. It is, at the very least, a fine comic book film. Chances are you will enjoy the heck out of it! I know I did. In fact, I am hoping to see it again soon...

Movie Review: The Avengers

Hey there folks! I'm back, as promised, with a review of The Avengers. Let me say right off the bat that, without a doubt, this is indeed the best of the Marvel Comics movies- by a mile. The movie has a ton going for it- action, special effects, and, most importantly, character interactions that are spot on. That said, I do have a few issues with the movie- not that I believe any movie has to be "perfect" (a subjective term if there ever was one); however, there are a few issues here that should be discussed. Mindless gushing isn't the same as a solid look at this movie- which clearly deserves a strong look. So- away we go:

The Good:

First off, the movie is something of a miracle. Who would have believed that there would have ever been a comic book movie with a team of superheroes- with the premise that they had movies before and would have movies afterward? Not even Watchmen (a one-off) could claim this. Indeed, it is fantastic that they managed this feat- these movies have been like reading the books- a crossover, in fact. Each independent movie ties into The Avengers- in both large and small ways. We see the Cosmic Cube's power in Captain America. We see the villain, Loki, get his start in Thor. We see why Hulk is an exile in The Incredible Hulk. We see the formation of the Avengers Initiative in Iron Man (which also served to establish "the rules" of this Marvel Universe). Then, taking these threads- they  weave together into the tapestry of The Avengers- the climax of this particular crossover. As a result, The Avengers has accomplished something that no other comic movie ever has- taking several individuals' stories and bringing them into a single, larger (and coherent) movie. This is more historic than the box office haul that The Avengers has had, truth be told. I still am in awe that they managed to do it, and do it so well.



Secondly, you must hand it to both Joss Whedon and the people who cast these actors in their respective roles- for they have done so much to make this movie (and Marvel movies in general) a success. It is plain to see that each actor has come to the table ready to give it their all- each has brought so much already (in their individual movies) that it is amazing that no one shirks or falters here. You know it is bad when I can't say there was a weak link in the "Big 6"... all were great. Robert Downey Jr, after "phoning in" his performance in Iron Man 2, is perfection here- a blend of brilliance, cockiness, arrogance, and heart. Chris Hemmsworth is great as Thor- a bit more humble, but still a god nevertheless. Chris Evans is simply amazing as Captain America- he plainly shows that he is a man out of "his time", but he shows Cap's strengths- he adapts quickly, trying to come up to speed. He also plays Cap as strong, wise, and an urbane leader- there's no "golly gee" moment that makes him look like a fool for being patriotic or from being in the 1940s. Mark Ruffalo does a great job as Banner- he's a bit more accepting of what he has become, and I think there's a difference when his Hulk just "comes on" as opposed to when he "wills it" to- great ideas there- and Ruffalo makes sure that Banner is a human being above all else (don't get me wrong, I thought Edward Norton did just fine too, but Ruffalo beats him because the overall movie is better). Rounding out is Scarlett Johanson as Black Widow, giving her more depth this time out, and Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye- this guy is pissed, but he never lets that control his actions- he is so focused in the final battle despite what he suffers in the movie that you root for him, but you are also intimidated by him. Of course, there's also the supporting crew- Samuel L. Jackson finally gets to be Nick Fury (even his secrets have secrets, a neat twist), and Clark Gregg gets his moments as Colson.

As I said, the casting would be nothing without the script and direction from Joss Whedon. It is apparent that he "gets" these guys- and he has little interest in just blowing stuff up for the heck of it. He wants to show these superheroes bouncing off each other- fighting, arguing, distrusting, then finally saving each others' bacon, and then working as a team to protect the world. Each character acts "as they should"- at no point did I say "No! Cap would never do that"... Each character is pitch perfect, and that may be this movie's greatest strength- the chemistry between these guys is fantastic, and each gets their chance to shine, and then they help the rest of the cast shine too. Their attitudes, mannerisms, their line delivery- it made the thought that these 6 superheroes are together seem totally believable. And Whendon should get the credit for a huge chunk of that- another director would have emphasized the spectacle over the characters, and that didn't happen here, which raises the movie from great to fantastic.

Third, there's the action. In the age of fast cuts, slow motion, CGI, and all the other issues, many action movies seem to suffer from ADD- look at Transformers for proof of that. So many movies move so damn quick camera-wise, that you get no sense of the logistics regarding the fights or carnage. There's no clear picture of what is happening or what is at stake. In The Avengers, Whedon isn't afraid to calmly show the action without it being overwhelming. You clearly follow what's happening, and boy, the fighting in this movie is stupendous. The secret is, again, the action plays second fiddle to the characters. Throughout the several fight scenes, the movie is squarely on the heroes, you care about them and you see it through them. The movie never seeks to drown them (or the audience) out, which only makes the whole stronger.


Finally, I'd be remiss to mention the other secret weapon of The Avengers- Tom Hiddleston's Loki. He has it the hardest here. Now, most comic book movies, the villain doesn't come back. Yes, there's Magneto, but he's not strictly "the villain". Yes, there's Lex Luthor, but he plays second fiddle in Superman 2 (and the less said about 4 and Returns, the better). See, the good villains usually die, never to return, so in the sequel, there's a new villain. Here, Loki is the main baddie, as he was in Thor. And truthfully, his "villainy" is less developed by Whedon than the heroes are (more on that below). But Hiddleston makes the most of it, imbuing his Loki with a sense of "Paradise Lost"- he has fallen from grace- so far, in fact, that he sells himself in order to make Earth (and by extension, Thor) suffer. If Loki can't serve in Asgard, he will reign on Earth. But even then, he can't do it alone, and he seems to have made a Faustian deal to bring an evil alien army to help him conquer Earth. Loki is, for all his power, pathetic and sad- no longer the second son of Odin, but instead, a dim and perverted reflection of his former majesty. Hiddleston gets that, and makes Loki lash out in rage because of it- fantastic acting, and I hope that we can see more of him.

The Bad:

The film is terrific, don't get me wrong. It is, simply put, the strongest Marvel movie to date, and is one of the best comic movies, period. That said, there are some problems here- and they are not minor quibbles, like "I wish the soundtrack was better" (which I thought was fine, by the way) or "Gee- I wish Cap's costume was a bit more like his movie" or some crap- no. These are legitimate concerns and critiques, not nitpicking. So, let's look:

First, the movie is, at times, like a run-away freight train. It moves incredibly fast. Now, that in itself isn't bad- however, certain scenes become choppy. The movie ends up feeling a bit disjointed at times, which makes one wish they would just breathe for a second. It jumps from character to character, scene to scene so damn fast, that it feels like it is about to break under the strain, though it doesn't. But it comes close to collapsing under its weight, which makes viewing it problematic at times.

Second, as I said earlier, the villains of the piece, Loki and the alien Chitari, are not that well developed. The only reason Loki fares so well is that Hiddleston gives it his all, with looks and quirks which show the turmoil he is feeling- but it is not explicitly stated. We know based on his performance what Loki wants, but the surface reason is "he wants to conquer". The "Faustian deal" angle and the "revenge on Thor" factor are more implied than a vibrant part of the movie, which hurts overall. Equally, the Chitari are never more than just alien marauders- they are not developed, lack motivation, and are, ultimately, easily disposable. They exist to be punching bags, and that is it. They are not explained beyond that. Do they have a grudge against Earth? Do they seek war for its own sake? Is it about honor? How did they fall in with Loki? Or the mysterious evil at the end credits? It's too bad, as the look of them is pretty cool en masse, but they are never anything more than low level baddies that the heroes get to punch.

Third, the humor itself is sometimes over the top. Yes, the movie needs a sense of humor, and most of it is tonally perfect. However, there are elements that, while humorous now, will be looked at with disdain later. I guarantee it. When Hulk beats Loki like a rag doll, people laughed and exploded with cheers. I KNOW that, one day, people will say it was too far over the top, almost cartoonish. There are several bits like that- and I feel it dragged the movie down a bit.

Finally, there is no larger theme here. For this, I blame Nolan. He has spoiled us, with his Batman movies being about more than just a comic book movie or an action movie. The Nolan films have reflected our fears about terrorism, how far we go to fight it, and if, by gazing into the abyss, the abyss gazes also, just to name a few. Now, most movies don't do that (let alone comic movies), but the modern Batman films have done that so well, that I think comic movies CAN act as Sci-Fi, in terms of making you ask questions about real life through these fantastic characters. Now, of the Marvel Universe movies, only Captain America approached that, by asking "in war, just what makes a man a hero". With Avengers, there seems to be no larger theme or idea. The only thing this movie wants to do is get these guys together and have a good time with it. Perhaps the second Avengers will play with a larger theme than that- and IF Thanos is the baddie, I could see just that happening.

Bottom Line:

I loved this movie. It is, beyond all doubt, the best Marvel Universe movie. Great characterization, amazing action sequences, big and little moments, you name it. It is also one of the best comic movies too (though I think Nolan's Batmans have been untouchable- not because they are perfect, but because they go beyond the simple "man in a mask" approach and accomplish something much bigger). For sheer entertainment, you can't beat The Avengers. But the movie also has a heart- it is not cynical, or just mindless action. For those reasons, it earns a 4 out of 4 Marks of Chaos.

Until next we meet....

Lead-Up To The Avengers

Hey there Chaos fans! Old man Chaos is back. I'll be seeing The Avengers this weekend (along with half of America, I should think). The past few weeks, my wife and I decided to do a re-watch of all the Marvel movies, from the original Iron Man all the way through to Captain America. I figured I'd write briefly about each one, and see how they stack against each other. I must say that one of the things that struck me is how the movies go together in big and subtle ways. Indeed, this really IS like reading the comics, as each is tied together month to month, issue to issue, in a big crossover. That is really cool, I think... But anyways, lets look at them, starting with Iron Man...

Iron Man- this is the one that "started" the current Marvel age of movies. No one expected it to be the hit that it would become, the cultural phenom that would return Robert Downey Jr. back to stardom AND kick off a new wave of Marvel movies. It also has the reputation of being the best comic based movie ever. Is it?

Re-watching it again, I came away with the same opinion I had in 2008- its a great movie, but NOT the best. No doubt, the casting of RDJr is a masterstroke. Indeed, he truly IS Tony Stark- he captures the blend of genius, artist, spoiled rich guy, patriot... all in one package. However, I think that is an issue- his performance blinds viewers to the problems of Iron Man the movie (which become glaringly apparent on multiple viewings)- he's so good that the flaws get overlooked.

The movie starts off great- how they update Stark's origin for the War on Terror is nothing short of amazing. The terrorist who demands that the kidnapped Stark build him a new weapon, Stark's improvised suit, and his escape is breathtaking... Then the movie slows considerably, as Stark tinkers with his armor, realizing the good he can do. But then, there's no action for a LARGE stretch, and it is only held up by RDJrs humor and goodwill. Then, when it is suddenly (and poorly) revealed that his partner Obediah Stane is behind all the trouble, the movie accelerates so quickly, and Stane is reduced to a one-note and easily disposed of villain, that the end of the movie seems rather weightless and unearned. Don't get me wrong, the movie IS good, but it isn't the best comic movie, nor even the best Marvel movie.

What SHOULD have happened, is this: Iron Man goes back to fight the terrorists, and the main baddie has copied the suit that Tony used to escape (with some mods, naturally). Plenty of action, and Stark learns that Iron Man can do good on a global scale. But, only at the end does the audience see that Stane is the string puller of the terrorists, leaving Tony to deal with that in the next issue, er, movie... Instead, the end cleared the board, and only made matters worse for the planning of...

Iron Man 2: Now, when I first saw this one in theaters, I did not like it at all- I thought it was a wasted opportunity, far weaker than the original. Most critics complained that it was too busy setting up future Marvel movies- I disagree totally. There actually ISN'T much in here for the Avengers. Sure, there's a bit of it with Fury and such, but that is not the problem. The issue is the far too messy plot and weak villains.

Basically, AS written, neither Whiplash nor Justin Hammer are  developed very well. While I like Sam Rockwell, he is not made villainous enough here. As for Roarke, he's great, but the script gives him so little to do. Meanwhile, Stark is facing illness from his "heart", which causes him to fall into depression. Further, the government wants the specs for the Iron Man suit, and Stark refuses.

The problem is- there's great ideas here. If Tony is the rich kid who has it all, Whiplash is the opposite- brilliant but abused and downtrodden. If they planned it better, he would have been a great foil. If they planned it better, it would have been Stane trying to take the company from within, not Hammer being Stark's competition. Finally, they could have done more with the government being hostile to Stark, thus ratcheting up tension between him and Rhodes (well played by Don Cheadle).

Upon this recent viewing, I liked the movie more than the first time, but I still see it as a missed opportunity- with more careful plotting, this could have been a strong movie. Instead, it's just a mediocre comic book sequel.

The Incredible Hulk: This one is often forgotten, as it came out sandwiched between Iron Man and The Dark Knight in 2008 (ouch!). That's too bad, because the movie is quite solid. It follows up Ang Lee's poor "The Hulk" without explicitly acknowledging it; and while improving on that failure in every way.

Edward Norton does a fine job as Banner. He dreads his powers, and seeks to suppress it entirely, even if that means cutting himself off from his true love, Betty, and his life as a scientist. However, THEY just won't leave him alone. The government wants him- General Ross wants to bring the monster in so that they can study him and make a new line of super soldiers. Norton plays the "man on the run" very well, and his weariness is palpable, as is his happiness that he might get a second chance with Betty. Of course, it goes wrong when the General tries to make soldier Emil Blonsky into a super solider to beat the Hulk- with Blonsky becoming the out of control Abomination.

The movie is fun and action packed. The Hulk looks great, and the movie is well shot- the scenes in South America are nicely framed. However, it doesn't quite gel together, and it does go off on some tangents before getting back on track. The final battle with the Abomination was well done, but it was a bit overstuffed and way too CGI-ish, as was the sudden dropping in of the Leader in a rather ham-fisted way... Overall, its not Marvel's best, though it is stronger than people give it credit for.

Thor: This was the biggest surprise. Who amongst us would have thought- a) Marvel will make a big-budget Thor movie and b) that it would be any good? Ha- not too many, but it happened. Director Kenneth Brannagh used his Shakespeare to forge the relationship between the Norse brothers into a classical conflict.

The casting really helps here- Chris Hemmsworth is great as Thor- he exudes the strength, heroism, and recklessness in equal measure- and he certainly looks the part. Anthony Hopkins is exalted as Odin- wise, powerful, sentimental at heart but he hides that behind a tough exterior. Tom Hiddleston generates the right mix of pain and deceit as Loki- a polar opposite of Thor, and yet connected in deep ways. And while I don't buy that Natalie Portman is an astrophysicist, she does just fine otherwise. The cast is rounded out by Stellan Skarsgard as a professor, Colm Feore as the King of the Frost Giants, and Idris Elba as Heimdall, guardian of the Bifrost. The cast is very strong, and each does their part without overwhelming the proceedings.

The movie does a great job blending fantasy and science with a comic book sensibility. The action scenes are great, particularly when Thor confronts the Frost Giants, and later when Loki unleashes the power of the Destroyer against a helpless Thor. The themes of the movie (learning to be humble, and learning to accept yourself) is strong, as is the fractured relationship between Thor and his brother Loki. However, the movie tries to shoe-horn an unnecessary love interest (could he learn about humanity without falling in love with Portman? Geez.), and the final battle ends rather abruptly (it seems like a Marvel movie problem, at this point). Otherwise, Thor is surprisingly good, better than it has any right to be.

Captain America: I reviewed Captain America right here in the Chaos Corner blog when it came out last year. It certainly holds up to repeat viewings, and my assessment of it still stands. It is the best of the Marvel movies. It has an epic scope, while retaining an eye on the character of Steve Rogers (played with grace by Chris Evans). His nemesis Red Skull is played equally well by Hugo Weaving, who between this and Agent Smith makes him THE go-to bad guy. The movie is fun, action-packed, and true to the spirit of Captain America, the Marvel universe, World War II adventures, and comic book movies as a whole. It too ends the final battle between the Red Skull and Cap too abruptly- though, based on the execution, I would bet that we'll see Red Skull again. And the conclusion sets us up nicely for The Avengers...

So, here is my rating for each of the movies (using my scientifically proven Marks of Chaos rating method ;-):

Iron Man: 3 our of 4

Iron Man 2: 2 out of 4

Incredible Hulk: 2 1/2 out of 4

Thor: 3 out of 4

Captain America: 3 1/2 out of 4

I'll be back with a review of The Avengers as soon as I've seen it. Until next time...

Movie Review: Captain America

Hey people! Welcome back to the latest edition of Chaos Corner. I've played two games of 40K in the past couple of weeks. I won one, lost the other (both as Dark Eldar- I will go back to Chaos one day! I vow to Nurgle himself!). I'm going on vacation this week; afterward, I intend to play more games in August.

At any rate, I saw Captain America today. The last of the superhero movies for this summer: Thor was good (whoever would have thought we'd have a good Thor movie), X-Men: First Class was unexpectedly good, and Green Lantern was mediocre, at best. Will Cap be the best? Or the worst? So, away we go with our Captain America review:

I've been hoping that Captain America would be really good. I love the character, and thought the idea of having him IN WWII as he should be was a great move. Then, past few days, I've read numerous reviews. Some loved it. Others liked it. Plenty hated it. Hmmm. After seeing the movie, I recalled 2 of the reviews. One of them said "It's not perfect, but its entertaining"... uh, since when do movies (let alone highly subjective comic movies) HAVE to be perfect? No movie is perfect. Not even Empire Strikes Back, Godfather, or The Dark Knight. So, why walk in demanding perfection? The other suggested that Captain America spends too much time dwelling on "building up to The Avengers" instead of being a real movie. This is misleading. Marvel has done something incredible here. They have taken the idea of a comic universe mythos, and make movies that do the same thing (not single one-off characters, like most comic book movies). These guys (Thor, Cap, Iron Man, etc) all exist in the same world. There's spill over between the stories, characters, technologies, etc. Criticizing Cap for relying too much Iron Man/Thor while building to next year's Avengers misses the whole point. These Marvel movies are a mosaic. Pieces of a whole. Slamming that is like saying that Fellowship of the Ring spends too much time setting up pieces for Two Towers. Marvel's ambition with these is staggering, now that I've seen them all and how they all interlock (in obvious and in subtle ways). Iron Man 2 is bad not because it is building a Marvel mythos, but because the story just isn't good. Thor builds on the universe AND is a decent movie. And, it turns out that Captain America is the strongest entry yet in the Marvel Movie Universe. Here's the Good/Bad breakdown:

The Good: First, credit to the filmmakers for doing the World War II route. I'm sure there was pressure to "modernize" him- I'm glad they planted him firmly in WWII. It's essential to his character. Second, I have to credit the cast- they are truly perfection here. Chris Evans is a "pretty boy", and I was worried that he'd be as bad as Ryan Reynolds. I'm pleased to say that's not the case. Evans does a great job- he's an honest guy, a good guy that you want to root for. He plays Cap straight- a guy who wants to do the right thing. His strength isn't his body, but his heart. His morality. He doesn't WANT to kill, but to save innocents he'll do what he must- even if that means sacrificing himself. Equally good is Hugo Weaving, as the sinister Red Skull. Weaving had to walk a fine line here- there is nothing redeemable about the Red Skull. Unlike many comic book movies that have tragic, misunderstood, or victimized villains, the Red Skull is anything but. He is the ultimate expression of Hitler's Nazism- absolute power for the sake of power. No tragedy, no good ends through ignoble means- nope. The Red Skull is evil. That's it. It would have been easy to have the Red Skull be a caricature- a mustache twirling villain. But Weaving is good enough to give the character some shading- subtlety. And the "skull" effect is great- I felt I was looking at the Red Skull from the books. The supporting cast is great too- Tommy Lee Jones is great (tough but funny) as the Colonel, and Toby Jones is quirky but realistic in the role of Armin Zola. Finally, there's Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine, the scientist that creates Cap. He's a deep character, filled with sadness and hope in equal measure. In other areas, the special effects are great all around, the action is well done (if a bit too brief at points), plays like a WW II adventure, makes nods to current Cap comic stories, and ultimately makes great connections to the Marvel Universe (I guess, chronologically, this movie should come first). I won't spoil them all, just keep your eyes open and make sure you've seen all the Marvel movies.

Well, Colonel Tommy Lee Jones, if you're trying to make up for Batman Forever, then mission accomplished!

The Bad- The action was a bit iffy at points, since some of the bits were over too quickly. This is a function of the second half of the movie- which is more of an overview of Cap's actions against the Red Skull throughout the war. The plot reflects that- you WANT to see more, but you're racing throughout the war to the end. The last half of the movie is kind of episodic, which is a shame. I'd love to see Cap go against other villains in WWII- Baron Zemo, for example. But, he's out of WWII by the end of the movie, so I guess not.

Ultimately, Captain America is the strongest Marvel movie yet (just a hair better than Iron Man). It handles the character with respect, is a fun WW II adventure (Indiana Jones, if you will), and really connects with the Marvel Universe. It says it all when you come to the end and you want to see what happens next. I'd give it three and a half Marks of Chaos out of four. Until next time, Make Mine Marvel, er... Nurgle.