Catching up with 2012: The Avengers

“A movie like "Marvel's The Avengers" doesn't need critics and critics don't need it.”

 “[T]he movie has some of the easygoing charm of "Rio Bravo," Howard Hawks's great, late western in which John Wayne, Angie Dickinson, Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson did a lot of talking on their way to a big and not-all-that-interesting shootout. The difference is that, in keeping with the imperatives of global franchise entertainment, the big shootout in "The Avengers" must be enormous, of a scale and duration that obliterates everything else.”

So, I finally saw The Avengers. Two things: the first quote is from Jim Emerson in this piece here. Everything he says about the film is spot on (although I think I like the CGI shot at the end more than the one he mentions in his essay). The second quote is from A.O. Scott’s article found here. I like that he mentions how some of the scenes involving Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Black Widow, and Captain America reminded him of the “easygoing charm” of one of Howard Hawks’ greatest movies. He’s right: there’s a certain amiability that is infectious throughout the middle of The Avengers. There isn’t a cynical note in the film. I appreciated that. Oh, and you don’t have to be a comic book fan, geek, nerd, or whatever do enjoy it. Lord knows I have little to no knowledge of the vast Marvel Universe, yet it doesn’t seem to matter as writer/director Joss Whedon just kind of comes right out (well, he has his characters come right out) and says what the audience is thinking, “we don’t need the logic; just give us what we came for: the crème-de-la-crème of Marvel superheroes teaming together – sharing the same frame – to jape and jest and smash things real good.”

So, yes, Emerson is right in that a movie like The Avengers doesn’t really need anyone to say whether it’s good or bad (especially someone getting to it as late as I am). But, here goes: I liked it. I liked the breezy way it moved through its exposition. I liked the cast and the quips and the tone. I even liked some of the CGI. My favorite shot is in that big finale (which Scott is right: it goes on way too long) when the camera follows the action without cutting so that we can see each of the Avengers in some kind of heroic moment. The camera starts by showing us Iron Man swooping in to help Captain America fight aliens on the streets of New York. And then without cutting, the camera (or the computer) moves from setpiece to setpiece catching glimpses of each Avenger at work. My favorite moment within my favorite moments has to be when the camera moves from Hawkeye battling aliens on a rooftop to the Hulk fighting on top of some kind of alien aircraft with Thor dropping in off frame to join him. It’s encouraging to see CGI being framed in a way (it actually comes across as if your eyes were moving from panel to panel in a comic book) where the audience can actually tell what the hell is going on.

I checked my cynicism at the door (I fully understand what the studio’s intent is with The Avengers; I also think that Whedon and co. do a fine job making the film come off as something more earnest than its “hey, let’s get together all of our 100+ million dollar superheroes and make a movie that we know people will shell out big bucks to see numerous times” exterior suggests) and found a film that I was more than glad to spend a little over two hours with. Huzzah. 

Read More

3 comments

Quick Thoughts on Iron Man 2

The summer movie season has officially begun now that the much anticipated sequel Iron Man 2 is out. I wasn't expecting a lot from the movie because I wasn't expecting a lot from the first film…so why go in with any other kind of expectations? I've never read a single panel of the Iron Man franchise, but two years ago when I watched the original Iron Man I was stunned at how witty and fun the film was with its classic action film aesthetic. I was shocked at how much I liked Iron Man, and even though I rarely see these big summer movies in the theater anymore, last night I decided to check out the sequel without any pre-conceived notions or expectations…and perhaps that's why I thought that the sequel was more successful than most:

• Jon Favreau returns to direct the sequel and his improvisational tendencies are all over the film. The screenplay, by Tropic Thunder writer Justin Thoreaux, has enough humor sprinkled throughout that it made me forgive the film's horribly soggy middle where characters essentially just sit around and wait for plot points to gain momentum so they can pay them off at the end.

• The film follows the traditional story arc for comic book sequel (the tone of the film felt like it was a beat-for-beat remake of Spider-Man 2) which only becomes mildly annoying in its predictability.

• Robert Downey Jr. doesn't get the same material to play with, but as the narcissistic Tony Stark he still hits a homerun as this is so obviously the character he was born to play (can you imagine if the years-ago-rumor of Tom Crusie playing Stark came to fruition?) employing the same wit and snarky attitude that made the original so entertaining to watch despite the fact that things aren't blowing up all the time. 

• Oh, about the action: Iron Man 2 may be the tamest summer sequel ever made. There may be about 20-30 minutes of action in a two hour film. Now, that's both a good thing and a bad thing. The good: the filmmakers understand that people didn't love Iron Man because of the Rock-em-Sock-em Robot-type action (they Transformers for that kind of action film) which is pretty cheesy and boring to watch…they loved the first film because of the attitude of its characters, specifically Downey's performance, and the way the film felt like more than just another draining, dour 150 minute summer blockbuster (pay attention Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan) – it was a witty, crisp and breezy action film that felt classic in its execution compared to the modern output of summer action films – and because of this attitude and understanding the sequel doesn't try to amp up the action in any way. It's essentially the same film. The bad, however, exists because of this understanding from the filmmakers that the fans liked the original Iron Man so much because of Tony Stark and his snarky attitude. So, in the sequel we get an overdose of the kind of His Girl Friday whiplash dialogue between Stark and his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow who steals every scene she's in) and it becomes just as tiresome as the constant pounding of one's senses in a film like Transformers. It becomes grating only because it is so obvious that in the majority of the dialogue nothing sprang organically (except for the initial introduction of Potts), and it all felt like a screenwriter who was so pleased with how clever he was, instead of letting the actors embody their characters like they did so well in the first film. 
 
• About the characters: Everything is an upgrade – acting wise – in the sequel. I wish there would have been more of Mickey Rourke's character Ivan Vanko (one of the more interesting villains in recently memory who gets absolutely nothing to do during the duration of the film) and his dealing with Stark-wannabe Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell who does all of his usually great Rockwell-isms…playing smarmy in a way that only he can); and I wish there would have been more story between Tony (and just why does he sit around a lot in the middle of the movie? It's as if the filmmakers just expected us to except that plot thread) and Pepper (it would have made those final moments between the two better). I also loved the addition of Gary Shandling as a senator who hates Stark as much as any of his arch enemies do. Whew. There's more…and they're not good: Samuel L. Jackson was good, but unnecessary, and I'll do this as succinctly as possible because it's not worth thinking to much about…but boy Scarlet Johansson seems to be another movie altogether. Her, um, "action" scene at the end is one of the most laughable things I've seen in a while. It's not enough that she can't act, but now we have to watch her try and kick people's ass…yeesh.

• The film was breezy and fun, despite its problems, much in the way the first installment was. Despite the film's need to feel like they needed to set things up for subsequent films – ignoring what was important in this film – I really enjoyed what I saw. Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, and of course, Robert Downey Jr. are worth the price of admission. The action is satisfying as it happens – if altogether forgettable by the end of the night – and the interactions between the characters is exactly what I expected to get going into the film.

• Sure Iron Man 2 isn't as satisfying as the original – it's more of an appetizer it seems for a bigger third entry – and I've already forgotten a lot about the film, but as a Friday night entertainment I think the film delivers in spades. It's exactly what I expected it to be, because like my attitude going into the original, I had no expectations at all, and just let the charm of the actors wash over me and usher me through the problematic script that does its best to disinterest its viewers after the film's extremely entertaining opening 40 minutes.

Read More

2 comments

Link time! Death to Super-Serious Superheros!

Here's a good blog write up on the death of the superhero movie by Ali Arikan over at Cerebral Mastication, a great film blog. Check it out. As someone who knows little to nothing about comic books, I enjoyed it thoroughly. My two cents about the death of the genre after the jump...


I agree about the "seriousness" of comic book movies these days kind of tarnishing the genre. Of course, I was a fan of the The Dark Knight, but not for the same reasons that the emo thirteen year-olds were. I would over hear conversations in the lobby about what a profound movie it was, and how "sweet" the movie was, because "it was totally like a metaphor for terrorism". I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old, but the majority of the films fans (teenagers) wanted to claim the film held up metaphors and social commentary for the audience to ponder, which the film clearly couldn't support.

However, the film is great for taking the superhero movie out of the superhero realm and moving it to an noirish setting. I am not much of a comic book guy, so when movies are really comic booky (ie required inside knowledge to know what the hell is going on), I just don't get it, but hey as long as it's aesthetically pleasing and well made (like Dick Tracy) then I'm down. But what I can't stand is the kind of superhero film that wants me to know how serious and brooding its hero is (ahem, Superman Returns), those movies just plain suck. Superman Returns may have been one of the most boring suckfests I have ever sat through, and was more of an insult to Christians (we get it, Superman is like Jesus) than Bill Maher's Religulous.


The not-so-serious tone is what I actually kind of liked about Spider-Man 3, even though the film was flawed, and way to long, the emo Peter Parker was hilarious; especially the 'strut' scene. It was an example of a film not taking itself too seriously and having a little fun, which hey, isn't that what comic books are all about? I still haven't seen Iron Man I understand that the film kind of does the same thing with being a great comic book movie; just simple fun. I mean yes, some of them try to tackle bigger ideas and themes, but like Ali talks about with X-Men do we have to actually make the film about those ideas? Can a superhero film really stand up to the same themes as a more serious, contemplative drama? I don't know, but it's what kind of turned me off of X-Men 3. The second film was a wonderfully executed action film, but the third film tried way too hard to cram way too much into less than two hours.

And maybe that's the problem these days: length. Every superhero film tries to either cram too much of a story in (seriously, there are about six different two-hour films that could be made about the X-Men members; that's excluding Wolverine) to too short of a running time (like the aforementioned X-Men films) or they try to prove their mettle by overstaying their welcome and making their films the length of a Terrence Malick or Paul Thomas Anderson picture. Maybe these directors think that if their film is as long as these serious dramas, then maybe audiences will take them seriously. Serious or not, audiences are still going to pay money to see Spidey, Superman, Batman, and Wolverine; no need to make us sit through epic lengths for us to get our fix.

Anyway, that's a lot of rambling from me. Great write up by Ali, though. The superhero film does seem to be on the decline in quality. I attribute this to an over satiated audience, who, no matter what kind of superhero film is released, they'll gladly plop down the 10 bucks to go see it. As long as there is a demand for it, there will be more good, sometimes flawed, but always overly long superhero movies like Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight. I just don't know which I prefer, the comic book films that are cheesy and clearly drawing upon a more classic aesthetic, ala The Phantom, Dick Tracy, The Shadow, etc., or the more 'serious' darker films like Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, Spawn, Hellboy, etc.

Both styles of comic book film clearly draw upon postmodern elements; the first group draws upon the nostalgia that Frederic Jameson so eloquently talks about in his book Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, but wait....I'm doing what those that praise The Dark Knight are doing....I'm attaching something this deep to a film like The Phantom? Seriously? Well, you can't deny that films like it use that nostalgia to create a a more clear cut comic book world, whereas the darker films like the second group I listed above like to place their characters in seedy cities with noirish art direction surrounding them; this placement allows the audience the opportunity to ponder these more serious metaphors because the characters exist in tangible and recognizable cities like Chicago and New York. By taking the characters out of this fantasy world they are trying to pull something off that is impossible, because no matter how serious they want their comic book movie to be, it's still about a guy wearing a bat suit, or about mutants who control the weather.

Okay, wow. I wasn't planning on rambling on and on about this topic that much. Hopefully what I said makes a little bit of sense, but what do you all think? Is the superhero film dying? Head over to Ali's blog and read his piece and comment. Throw your comments in here too. I'd love to hear what you all think.

Read More

2 comments