AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON - A Retro Review

The MCU's Phase Three kicks off this Friday (actually, Thursday evening) with 'Captain America: Civil War'. We here at PRC couldn't be more stoked about this movie, and we've been spending the last few weeks taking a look back at all the MCU movies that tie into 'Civil War'. Today's entry wraps up this look-back as we check out the climax of Phase Two, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'.

You may have noticed by now that when I do these retro reviews, I tend to give some history on the project. Some backdrop for the lead-up and release of the movie. Sometimes it's just for color, sometimes it's tied directly to whatever my particular thesis for that critique is. This is a case of both, because this is not a strong movie, and maybe the expectations and demands put upon it played a part in that.

Following the runaway success of the first Avengers team-up, Marvel Studios had earned so much goodwill among its fanbase, that they could have done 'Avengers: Reading the Yellow Pages' and anticipation would still have been through the roof. Most people assumed that given his tease at the end of 'The Avengers', Thanos would be the main villain. However, in July 2013, MCU honcho Kevin Feige announced Joss Whedon was going to hold back on the Mad Titan, and pit the Earth's mightiest heroes against one of their deadliest foes - 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' was coming in Summer 2015.

Even though it was not a direct adaptation of 2012's comic arc of the same name, the fact that Ultron of the comics had just finished wiping out humanity sold him on die-hard fans as a worthy opponent for Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this was one of the most anticipated movies of all time. The SDCC announcement and teaser footage was all but wiped from the internet, creating a sense of mystery and heightened demand for any glimpses of the film. When the first trailer hit, it broke YouTube records. The public thirst for all things Marvel reached fever pitch. Phase Three was announced nearly a year before Phase Two would even end. The hype could not have been bigger.

Then it was released. And for a while after 'Age of Ultron' came out, nobody wanted to admit the truth. For all the hope, the hype, the awesome trailers, the promise of a darker story with a nigh-invincible foe, the second Avengers film was just plain disappointing.

The initial response might have been to say to yourself "well, my expectations were just too high", and there's probably some truth to that. But there's another truth, too. It's just not a very good movie. It's not a wholly bad one either, but it damn sure isn't a good one.

There is something hollow and empty at the center of 'Age of Ultron'. From the opening sequence, the movie is almost too slick. The good guys toss around CGI bad guys in a way that makes everything seem more cartoonish than realistic, and is definitely a departure from the much more polished first film. So much is going on in nearly every frame of the opening battle that it is, at times, difficult to keep up with who's doing what to whom. There are shots of the Hulk and Iron Man that clearly look like unfinished work, and some rigging on Captain America that survived a digital eraser. Stuff like this makes the film feel rushed and slapped together.

And that, I think, points to a fundamental problem with this movie. Everything feels forced. The screenwriting is lazy and the story advances, whether or not it makes any sense at all. And unfortunately, it frequently make no sense. So the poor(ish, by Marvel standards) reception can't be blamed on too-high expectations. And if that's the case, then the blame must fall on director Joss Whedon. He wrote it, he directed it, all criticism is his. Maybe his heart wasn't in it, maybe he just ran out of ideas. But we'll get to his shortcomings in a little bit. For now, let's look at the story:

A would-be world conquerer, fueled by selfish rage, steals the film's macguffin, which turns out to be an infinity stone. There's a mid-movie squabble, in which the Hulk is out of control and must be subdued by one of his own teammates. A likeable supporting character is killed, and the villain has an army of paper soldiers that the Avengers must battle, but are not very tough. The primary villain has a plan for global domination that isn't terribly well thought out and has a glaring fatal flaw. Cap and Stark bicker until they get a pep talk from Nick Fury, put aside their differences, team up, and defeat the bad guy, with the help of a more in-control Hulk. Thanos shows up in the credits. Which Avengers movie am I talking about?

Even Ultron is confused by what he is.

While undeniably a retread, this story is advanced by the villainous robot Ultron (voiced by James Spader). Ultron is originally intended by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner to be a good guy, until he turns evil after he's given consciousness by...who exactly? The movie never stops to actually state that. Was it Stark and Banner? Was it the mind stone*? Aside from that, just what the hell does Ultron want? We're told very little about what his original purpose is, other than "global peacekeeping", but what does that entail? And once he's created, there are no growing pains. He is birthed, as it were, evil, with burning hatred for the Avengers, and Stark in particular. But no reason is ever really given for why he wants them all dead. And once that is done, then what? What is his endgame?

*unlike the tesseract (a.k.a. the space stone), which is more or less a key, the mind stone as a macguffin is much more problematic. Yes, I understand that it's a macguffin that is mostly just waiting around to be used during 'Infinity War', but still -  while it's ok to tease something for a future film, it's not ok to just flat out leave shit unexplained. Does the mind stone have a consciousness of its own? Does it have will? Did it create Ultron, or corrupt him? Why is Vision different from Ultron? Too many questions.

Ze twins.

Of course, Ultron is not the only character to suffer a lack of development. The Maximoff twins, Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda (Elizabeth Oslon) are, for two-thirds of the movie, painted as villains who team up with Ultron because of their vendetta against Tony Stark. But why? Because their parents were killed in a bombing and Stark Industries manufactured the bomb? That makes as much sense as someone who gets shot being angry at the bullet manufacturer. Once they figure out they're totally expendable to Ultron (because what bad guy ever really gives a shit about his henchmen?) they switch sides and help the Avengers. I guess their blood feud with Stark wasn't so deep, after all. The villain who kick starts the plot, Baron von Strucker (Thomas Kretschmann) may as well be just another faceless Hydra goon, as he only has a few minutes of screen time, and is killed off-screen (about which Stark has to make a joke) because...why?

I won't front. This was dope.

In addition to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the Vision (Paul Bettany) is a new addition to the team, but with a personality and abilities so nebulous, all we are given to go on is the fact that he can wield Mjolnir. About that... I won't lie, that shit was badass, but still...he is an artificial being, with no soul. Or is he? Does he have a soul? How can he be worthy if he's just an android**? We should have seen Ultron trying to hold Mjolnir and failing, so we can know the rules. Even Stark and Cap concede Vision's ability to do so doesn't mean much. Without fully knowing what he is - man or machine.

**Far too often, the team uses the term AI to describe what Ultron is. And I'm by no means an AI expert, but I think they're still misusing the term. Do they mean artificial consciousness? Or just intelligence? It's actually important in the case of this movie for two reasons - Ultron has emotions that counter his logic and reason, and Vision can lift Mjolnir. They should at least discuss it for a minute. 

One of the bigger "why is this really necessary?" moments in the movie, the Hulkbuster sequence is wonderful fun. It's a geek's paradise, seeing Stark in his suit, taking on one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe, and holding his own! Triumphing, even! And it goes on for just...far too long. Stark fights him instead of just trying to get him out of the city. The one time he does, Hulk escapes and Stark never tries again. And this is problematic within the course of the movie itself. 'Age of Ultron' goes out of it's way to show the Avengers attempting to protect civilians from the destruction their battles create, but at some point, it just becomes tedious to see them shuttling bystanders out of danger's way.

With so many unfinished ideas, I'm not convinced Whedon really knew what to do with this story. And far too many times, his fingerprints are visible in the clay, so to speak. You can tell when he just wanted to make a joke. Like Maria Hill's explanation of the twins; "He's fast and she's weird." Well, that's just...wildly unhelpful in explaining the powers of Scarlet Witch, and not the only time he opts for humor instead of clarification or exposition. And you can tell that he really wanted some kind of romantic angle to explore. In one of the least convincing character pairings I can think of, Black Widow and Hulk are in some kind of weird and painfully uncomfortable flirtation. Their chemistry is so non-existent, that Whedon has to rely on other characters actually pointing out that they're being romantic. And he's not incapable of doing it. In just a few moments, you buy Jeremy Renner and Linda Cardellini as a married couple. So why did things feel so wrong with Romanoff and Banner?

We know from various interviews and articles that Whedon really fought to keep Barton's family and home in the movie. This is a 16 minute sequence that grinds the movie to a halt and the purpose it serves is unclear. Yes, the Avengers need a place to lay low after Hulk's freakout and Scarlet Witch's mindfuckery, but what do they gain from going to Barton's home? Other than some knowledge they didn't previously have, none of them have any sort of epiphany, or reach any sort of conclusion that the farmhouse specifically provides. Whedon fought for it because he wanted it, because he liked it - not because it was a particularly good or creative idea. It could have happened anywhere.

There are two "rules" of writing I think about when I think about Whedon; one is that every sentence should either reveal your characters or advance the plot; the second is that you can't be afraid to kill your darlings. And so much of this film is just that - Whedon opting to go with what he likes over what best serves the story. Jokes over exposition, forced characterization that comes out of nowhere, unnecessary subplots. After production, he took not so subtle jabs at Marvel Studios, claiming studio interference, blaming them for forcing changes. But in the end, Joss Whedon is still responsible for the finished product. He can blame them all he likes, but he didn't walk away. Edgar Wright walked away from Ant-Man, Marvel wanted a more brand-friendly picture, and they got it from Peyton Reed. But Reed also delivered a solid movie. One can criticize 'Ant-Man' for being too similar to the plot of the original 'Iron Man', but it still works. 'The Force Awakens' is very similar to 'A New Hope', but it still works. A retread of old material can work, if you bring something unique, either to the plot, or to the characters. Whedon didn't do that. He held on to his darlings as tightly as he could, and he turned in a half-finished movie. And that is why it doesn't work.


FINAL SCORE - 6/10

Captain America and most of the Avengers will be seen starting tomorrow night in the insanely anticipated kick off to Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, 'Avengers 2.5 - The Stark Knight'...I mean, 'Captain America: Civil War'. Shit looks tight, yo.

THE AVENGERS - A Retro Review

Ed. Note - I meant to edit and publish this yesterday, but then Prince died, and his Royal Badness took up most of my attention the rest of the afternoon. If we get halos in the afterlife, I'm sure his will be purple and funky shaped. Also, I'm going to go back and revisit not only Burton's '89 'Batman', but Prince's kooky/genius addition to the finished product. Rest easy, Prince. 


The MCU's Phase Three is about to begin with 'Captain America: Civil War'. And so we're taking a look back at all the films that feed into this conflagration. Today, we review the end of Phase One, 'The Avengers'.

Disney made no attempts to hide which actors they favored.

Summer 2012. It all came down to this. This was the end result of four years of teasing end-credit stingers, cameo appearances, linked macguffins, and public knowledge that the team-up was coming. No studio had ever tried what Marvel/Paramount/Disney was trying to do. Aside from the Fantastic Four and the X-men, who were already established superhero "teams", no one had ever succeeded in bringing individual superheroes from their own solo movies into a team-up situation. And now it was about to happen. Anticipation was sky-high. Expectations? My own thoughts were along the lines of "just don't fuck it up, and I'll be happy."

Let me break for a moment to say that usually, when I think about/review a movie, I want to focus more on what was intended by both the director and the screenwriter more than what *I* expect and want from the story. Yes, my preference is for darker stories, with a more emotional impact than action for the sake of action. I'm not saying that lighthearted or fun or just plain action movies are bad - not at all. I'm just saying my preference is for something with more substance. And even though a movie might aim for just being a crowd pleaser, it still has to have a good story. And a good story should always have an answer for any moment where someone asks "why?"

Back to my expectations. When I saw 'The Avengers', I was happy. It is a very fun movie, that succeeds in doing what it sets out to do - entertain audiences. The acting was about what you'd expect, the visuals were colorful and vibrant. The superhero action was exciting. And the film's many money shots were satisfying.

But nobody was reinventing the wheel. It wasn't genre-breaking, or high art. It didn't really want you to have to think too hard. The characters weren't conflicted, or morally ambiguous. It was just a lark. That's all it wanted to be (and with a director like Joss Whedon, that's all it ever could be)

But this does not mean the movie is without it's fairly major flaws. Super fun, yes, but I wish that it had aspired to be more than just fun. Finally, Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye were on the screen together, taking on the best villain Phase One had to offer. Loki's Shakespearean arc from the first Thor is one of the strongest points of what I consider one of the strongest Marvel films to date, so I was quite happy he was going to be the big-bad who'd necessitate the assembly of The Avengers. While his goal of world domination seems like something that would require six superheroes to band together, his plan is pretty much nonsense.

And there are far too many moments where the "why?" just kinda gets ignored in favor of doing something that looks cool. Thor, Iron Man and Captain America having a fight in the woods. Why? Because Iron Man was mad that Thor kidnapped Loki? Ok, but when you stop and think about it, SHIELD already knows who Thor is, and Tony did his homework ("Am i the only one who did the reading?") so he should know who Thor is, too, and not be so eager to get into a fistfight with him. Maybe try something like asking "hey, who are you? what do you want?" So what's the real "why"? Because it looks cool to have three heroes fight.

Then, in a sequence that seems directly inspired by the Joker's arrest mid-way through 'The Dark Knight', Loki finds himself captured and held prisoner aboard the SHIELD helicarrier. But while the Joker had a reason to get himself locked up, Loki's desire for capture is explained away by "Loki means to unleash the Hulk". Ok. But again, let's think. How and why will he achieve this? What good will it do? Hulk flips out and wreaks havoc for about four minutes before jumping out of the ship. So what's the real "why"? Because it gives us an opportunity to see Hulk and Thor fight.

Why do the Avengers finally assemble? To avenge Coulson, and then to protect from an alien invasion. Except the audience has more of a connection to Coulson than any of the actual Avengers (save Widow and Hawkeye, who are SHIELD agents). Tony briefly interacts with him during 'Iron Man 2', and makes a point that he doesn't even know his first name. Thor briefly meets him during 'Thor'. Cap for a few moments early on in 'The Avengers'. So really, Coulson's death hits us* harder than the Avengers.

*This is one of my main beefs with Joss Whedon. He doesn't know how to elicit a genuine emotional response without killing off a character. Look at Buffy! Season one - Buffy dies. Two - Jenny and Angel die. Three - Angel leaves Buffy (which is a different sort of death), Five - Joyce dies, and Buffy dies again! Six - Tara dies. Seven - Anya and Spike die. Going into 'Age of Ultron' we all knew an Avenger would bite it, because that's what Whedon does. That's ALL he does! YOU CAN'T STOP HIM! HE'LL WADE THROUGH YOU, REACH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND PULL YOUR FUCKIN' HEART OUT!!

Yes, they must defend the Earth from alien domination, and yet, Loki's plan to take over the world is particularly foolhardy. He has an army that can essentially be kept in check by six people, and it only invades from a single bottleneck entry point. Normandy was bigger in scale than the Chituari's attempt to take over Earth. Iron Man's bullets and missiles deal out a pretty good amount of damage to the Chitauri, so military fighters would probably help as well.

The Avengers themselves do a pretty good job of keeping the invading army busy, and yet the World Security Council decides to nuke Manhattan. While this does allow for the great Nick Fury line (I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected ignore it), it REALLY is a stupid-ass decision. The Chitauri are not advancing outside Manhattan, and really, they're not causing all that much damage either, so why the hell would they elect to obliterate a few million people?? Because it affords Iron Man an opportunity to be selfless and risk his own life to destroy the enemy.

I'm rambling a bit, but I'm also making a point - any movie, when you start dissecting a movie, you can discover that it's chock full of flaws, plot holes, silly story choices. Does that take away from the enjoyment of the movie? Sometimes. It depends on how well the movie achieves it's primary objective. And in the case of 'The Avengers', that was to bring all the heroes together in a way that created a sense of fun and wonder. And it did that very well. Not perfectly, but very well. Which is why it's still a movie that I quite enjoy.

FINAL SCORE 8/10


Most of the Avengers will next be seen in Captain America: Civil War, which is coming out in two weeks. Be there, or be square.