Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (Trevor)

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Marvel Studios deserves a good bit of credit for concocting a grand plan and sticking to it. I’m not sure studio head Kevin Feige even realized how big of an empire they would build when they first drafted their plans. And everything just keeps getting bigger. The centerpiece of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the mash-up adventures of all the stand-alone characters: “The Avengers.” The Summer Movie Season of 2015 begins with the second all-star film “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” The film features everything people loved about the first one with a much larger cast, but ultimately offers nothing new.

“Age of Ultron” opens with our team of heroes already assembled going after Loki’s scepter from the first film, which is being held and experimented with by the last holdouts of Hydra. Here, we meet two of Hyrda’s test subjects, the Maximoff twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen), whose backstory leads them to hate Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.).

With the scepter recovered, Stark and Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) use it to try and create a type of artificial intelligence Tony has been working on. He envisions this program being used for peacekeeping purposes that would one day render The Avengers as obsolete. Initial tests fail, but it ultimately takes hold within the computers at Tony’s house and puts itself into one of Stark’s iron robots. Thus, the birth of Ultron (James Spader). He learns from the Internet that humans are bad and must be destroyed. He enlists the help of the Maximoff twins to help with his diabolical scheme. Our team of Avengers must stop Ultron and the Maximoff’s before they destroy the world.

Of course, the movie wouldn’t reach its full two-and-a-half hour run time without tons of plotting exposition in between the highly stylized, CG-filled action sequences. There’s also a ton of bro moments with Stark, Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth). We also get some more back-story on Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) that seemingly comes out of nowhere. There’s even some dark back-story and a little love interest for Agent Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson).

“Age of Ultron” is loaded to the brim with so many characters and so many different stories that it feels like it might just break the hard drive it was created on. But from the early concepts behind these films, how could anyone have thought they were going to be clean, polished and concise? That’s what the stand-alone movies are for. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” remains the best film Marvel has produced because it’s the only film in the studio’s history to work off a script with a complete beginning, middle and end, and actually pull off the high-octane action sequences effectively. It’s also the only film of the bunch that didn’t necessarily feel like a superhero film, but rather a political thriller with superhero as the protagonist.

“Age of Ultron” takes everything that Marvel has done in its past and doubles down. The action sequences are grander and longer. The in between sequences of exposition are more drawn out and detailed. The disposable army of clone soldiers – I mean, Ultron robots – is bigger and faster. Okay, now I’m just getting picky with that remark. Writer/director Joss Whedon actually has improved upon the things that flawed the first film. Yes, there’s a lot of down time he fills with exposition and back-stories, but there are some moments that genuinely do feel like a heart felt attempt. Are these moments necessary to advance the plot of the film? Not really, but he wants to give these characters a little more humanity. Suddenly, Hawkeye in particular doesn’t seem like just a waste of space with a bow-and-arrow. It ultimately feels forced and out of place, and increases the run time considerably.

Whedon has also cleaned up his direction of the combat sequences this time. I’d be worried if he didn’t. “The Avengers” was bogged down by moments where everything was happening so fast that you couldn’t tell what’s going on. “Age of Ultron” is that way too, but they’re not as prolonged. He doesn’t stick with the same moments for nearly as long, given everyone a little more time to process what’s happening. Christopher Nolan experienced the same thing when he got involved in the action genre. His fistfights in “Batman Begins” are so muddy compared to what he accomplished in “The Dark Knight.” Same thing applies here with Whedon. Remember, this is only Whedon’s fourth film. (And I may have just committed a cardinal sin by mentioning a DC film in a review about a Marvel film. Oops.)

As big and grand as “Age of Ultron” is, it never feels like it’s overwhelmingly crowded. There are always a lot of characters on screen and there’s different stories coming at you from different directions, but it’s never more than you can process. This isn’t the work or a filmmaker trying to completely mess with your mind and senses, but rather the work of studio and filmmaker actually working well together for a change. Whedon respects the source material so much that he doesn’t want to offend anyone by leaving anything out. (Although, I’m sure there are things people want to see included, but won’t.) Whedon and Marvel have gone hand-in-hand thus far in this highly successful experiment that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He leaves the film and story in good hands moving forward as he won’t be involved in the future films, at least not as a director or writer. He’s set up a lot of high expectations for fans of this studio’s work, and he leaves us with a film that will likely meet the expectations of almost all in attendance. It doesn’t offer up anything new or revelatory to the series, but it does offer us the same amount enjoyment that this studio has become famous for delivering.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (Joe)

by. Joe Moss
★★½

Well, one thing is for certain...when you watch Avengers: Age of Ultron, if you desired to see a kick-ass, slam-bang, action montage after action montage--YOU HAVE FOUND IT!! Joss Whedon's latest entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe hits all of those 'labels' and more. But my question is, "Did he hit too much more?" Was this movie forced to become too much to ready the Universe for all of the future film sequels and spin-offs that have been announced. Just a warning...Prepare yourself for INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!

The Avengers needing to regroup after a defeat in South Africa.

I will be the first to admit that this was one of my most anticipated movies of 2015, and I have been one of those fan-geeks who over-analyzed the theatrical trailers to the point of driving myself mad with plot speculation. Joss Whedon (touché, sir) did a masterful job of misdirection in the trailers--that much I will allow to slip in this review. Almost 50% of the speculations floating around the internet regarding what 'must happen' are wrong. Now, that being said, I found myself lost in what the POINT of this movie was supposed to be. There was too much information presented, plot twisting, new characters and back-story intertwining that the movie became lost in itself--for about 1/3 of the film run time.

The film opens where we last saw the Avengers, hunting down the scepter wielded by Loki in "The Avengers." They have finally traced it to a remote location in Eastern Europe (Sokovia) to Baron Strucker's castle where hold-overs of Hydra are at work unleashing the power within the scepter. Enter the Avengers doing their usual wherein they recover what they were after, but there is a twist--Hydra has been performing human manipulations once again. Unleashed are Maximoff Twins, Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

The Maximoff Twins

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), Dr. Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and the crew return to Avengers Tower in New York to regroup, heal [with the aid of Dr. Cho (Claudia Kim)], and relax until Thor returns to Asgard with the scepter to be locked away safely. Except we all know that when Tony Stark is involved, nothing every quite goes as planned when there is an 'untapped power supply' in the picture. Suffice to say that from this point on is where the movie gets TRULY INTERESTING.

After the farewell party gone awry, we see the introduction of Ultron (James Spader), Laura Barton (Linda Cardellini), Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), Vision (Paul Bettany), F.R.I.D.A.Y. (Kerry Condon), and Thanos (Josh Brolin) for the 3rd time.

OK....the visuals were stunning. The cinematography was spot on; the editing was amazing as usual. What really bothered me about this movie was that I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a revenge story, a love story, a revenge story about love, a love story intermingled with revenge...well, you get the picture here. With the introduction of the Maximoff's, we are handed a whole NEW story line regarding their background that is all new to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And their initial story centered around revenge against a member of the Avengers team. This is the entire reason they teamed up with Ultron. BUT...then there is one of about 25 plot twists that tweaks that plot line and morphs it into something else entirely.

Beauty and the Beast?

Also circumspect is the relationship between a few members of the Avengers team. There is love in the air that is alluded to MULTIPLE times throughout the film, but it seems to be as confusing to the characters as it is to the audience. AND we are privy to Hawkeye's background (Jeremy Renner) which nobody in the theater saw coming. That added an entire new plot twist and allowed a whole new emotional side of Hawkeye to be addressed by Renner as the film progresses. One that doesn't necessarily add to the plot as a whole.

Lastly, there is a lot of testosterone induced posturing throughout the film between Thor (Chris Hemsworht), Captain America (Chris Evans), and Tony Stark. This seemed overly ridiculous and wholly looked to be a forced add-in to introduce the plot for the next Captain America/Avengers/Thor set of films, wherein information has already been leaked about a "war" coming, and the death of an Avenger.

Overall, I liked the film. Would I watch it again? Sure thing. Was it as spectacular as I had hoped it would be. No. Maybe in a few years after I have watched the culmination of this purveyance of the Marvel Cinematic Universe I will be able to look back on "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and say, "ohhhhhhhh, so that's why that happened." But for now, I was unsatisfied with most of the plot/information overload.

Review: Thor: The Dark World

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

There’s no denying Marvel is king right now. The gamble this studio made several years ago to solely finance and release their movies seems to have paid off. They’re now on track to release at least two or three movies every year through 2018. “Thor: The Dark World” is the second film from Marvel to come out this year (yes, I know “The Wolverine” is Marvel property, but that’s not released under the Disney/Marvel banner and does not factor in with the story arcs involving The Avengers). The first release this year – “Iron Man 3” – is already the year’s top grossing film and nothing will dethrone that. It’s also the second film of four planned films that will all culminate with the release of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” in 2015. Yes, Marvel seems to have everything all planned out the way they want it. Now if only they could hire some better writers.

“Thor: The Dark World” takes place after the events in “The Avengers”, though I’m not sure how much later. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is being sentenced to a life in the Asgard dungeons by his father Oden (Anthony Hopkins) for his role in the New York City alien invasion from “The Avengers”. Meanwhile, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is fighting to keep peace on all the different realms in the universe. He still misses Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), his romantic interest in the first film. With the help of the gatekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba), Thor has kept his eye on her from a distance.

Jane is living in London, continuing her research with Dr. Eric Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and her intern Darcy (Kat Dennings). Jane and Darcy aren’t able to locate Selvig as the movie opens; unbeknownst to them, he’s been arrested for running around Stonehenge butt naked babbling about the end of the world. But Jane and Darcy have bigger things to worry about right now. Their research shows readings that are similar to what they saw in the first film right before Thor appeared. Jane is excited since she thinks Thor is coming back for her. What she’s actually stumbled upon is a mysterious weapon hidden by the Asgardians called the Aether. Once she finds the Aether, it attaches itself to her.

The Aether’s sudden reappearance awakens Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), leader of the Dark Elves who wish to use the Aether to turn all the realms into dark worlds. Knowing that Jane is in danger, Thor returns to earth and takes her back to Asgard where he can protect her. The plan is futile, however, since Malekith’s first plan of attack is to hit Asgard. In order to keep Jane safe from Malekith, Thor must turn to his completely untrustworthy and deceitful brother Loki for help.

The original film “Thor” came to us in 2011 and served more as a set-up piece for “The Avengers”.  This was a necessary move for Marvel since the only people aware of the Thor character and the world around him were comic book fans. The film that director Kenneth Branagh gave us was about as good is it could have been given that its only purpose was to be a two-hour introduction piece for Thor and Loki. Now that the characters are established, it’s time for Marvel to really show us all the potential in these characters’ stories.

But “Thor: The Dark World” doesn’t capitalize on this as much as it probably could have. Now that everything has already established, Marvel seems to have dropped additional development of these characters to a secondary status. This film just seems to begin with no solid first act, forgetting the fact that it’s a standalone film. That’s always a major gripe I have with sequels: writers seem to forget the rules of screenwriting when drafting a sequel. Instead of building a completely separate story, they just write as if they were given free rein to extend the first film by another two hours. This is what makes Alvin Sargent’s screenplay for “Spider-Man 2” so good; not only is it a continuation of the character from the previous film two years early, but it’s also a completely different movie with a different set of conflicts and emotions. It stands alone by itself. For my money, that’s still the best superhero movie.

A lack of focus in the story is really what limits “Thor: The Dark World”. There are five credited writers on this film. Don Payne - who was the first writer to work on this film – and Robert Rodat (who wrote “Saving Private Ryan”) receive story credits, while Christopher Yost along with Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely provided the script. Yost has worked with Marvel for quite some time, and Markus and McFeeley are a collaborative team responsible for writing “Captain America: The First Avenger” and its forthcoming sequel. It’s even been said that Joss Whedon had to come in for rewrites and reshoots. With so many people working on the same thing, it’s easy to understand why the film lacks vision.

Problems with the script could have doomed this film for failure, but “Thor: The Dark World” is rescued from certain disaster by two people: Alan Taylor and Tom Hiddleston. Taylor is the film’s director who took a disconnected script and found enough drama, humor, action and emotion to make this a tolerable and fun film to watch. This could have easily gone the other way, but Taylor made sure that his film would not be an utter bore. His work composing shots, especially ones filmed entirely against green screens, is the work of a seasoned professional. Taylor is known for his work on the HBO television series “Game of Thrones” which shares similarities to the mythological subject matter of “Thor”, but he’s not really known for his film work. He’s come through here, adding his own touch to the fantasy worlds already established in the earlier film. The visuals are striking despite an overload of CGI to make it possible. Action scenes are limited to only a handful, but they are very well executed and choreographed making them a lot of fun to experience.

Hiddleston is the saving grace on the acting side. While Hemsworth is excellent as Thor, he brings nothing new to this film that we haven’t already seen. Portman’s role is reduced to that of damsel in persistent distress, which is such a poor use of a talented Oscar winning actress such as herself. Hiddleston, however, continues to surprise us as Loki. This is also the third time we’ve seen him in this role, but he gets better at it every time. He has a great grasp on this character, much more than any of his costars. Yet they do work very well as an ensemble which also helps cover up the story flaws.

I’m not saying “Thor: The Dark World” is a bad film. It has is disappointing downfalls, but it is enormously enjoyable from start to finish.  It’s a fun and exciting fantasy adventure. But I can’t ignore the problems with the writing. That’s the most basic and most important component to every film regardless of the target demographic. A good story isn’t something that’s reserved for low budget indie features; every film needs to excel at this. I did enjoy the film and I’m sure most everyone who watches it will too, but I have to call out what is a glaring flaw affecting far too many movies today. Marvel is on top of the world right now and they’re not going to be unseated anytime soon. But if they continue to release films with mediocre stories and scripts, the box office receipts will drop off, especially from the diehard fan base of these comics. 

Review: Rush

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

Ron Howard returns to the biopic genre that’s helped him win awards. Surely “Rush” will be another knockout film that will add many more statuettes to his trophy case, right? A 1970s set drama about Formula One racing drivers has to be exceptional. While “Rush” is an entertaining two hours, it does not live up to expectation.

“Rush” chronicles the rivalry between Formula One drivers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl) during the early-to-mid 1970s. Specifically, the movie focuses on the 1976 season, but not before giving us a little bit of back story on the two drivers. Hunt is a party animal and a womanizer. Early on, we see him putting his moves on an emergency room nurse (Natalie Dormer). He does settle down, at least for a short time, when he meets and marries British model Suzy Miller (Olivia Wilde).

Lauda, on the other hand, is a very focused and determined racecar driver. He’s here despite his family’s disapproval of his career choice. Since he comes from money, he’s able to buy his way into the lower tier Formula Three and eventually into Formula One. It doesn’t take long for teams to recognize his talent and he’s eventually signed by Ferrari. Eventually even Lauda finds love, with Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara).

On the race track, both Hunt and Lauda are bitter rivals. Hunt thinks Lauda is too uptight at times. Lauda thinks Hunt needs to concentrate more on his driving rather than his image. Throughout the 1976 season, Hunt and Lauda are the two best drivers with Lauda taking a large lead in the points. That is until catastrophic disaster strikes during the German Grand Prix. Lauda wrecks his car on a rain soaked track causing him to miss most of the remainder of the season.

“Rush” does not follow the typical three-act story structure model most Hollywood studio pictures utilize. Screenwriter Peter Morgan, who has scripted other biopics such as “The Last King of Scotland”, “The Queen” and another Howard film “Frost/Nixon”, abandons this method that he’s used before in his screenplays in favor of a more free flowing narrative. The film doesn’t really suffer because of this. There are a few moments where the film feels like it’s taking its time trying to get through certain episodes of history. Overall, the lack of structure doesn’t really do much too negatively affect the film.

Director Howard has never stuck to one genre in particular during his wildly successful directing career. He’s done his share of biopics, including “Apollo 13”, “A Beautiful Mind” and “Frost/Nixon”. He usually has a fair grasp on his subject when it involves real life people. But with “Rush”, it feels that he never fully grasps the characters. There’s not much in these characters for you to become emotionally attached. The moments of empathy are evident but limited. The film only shines during the racing sequences. There might be a little too much CGI for my taste, but it’s all very well choreographed and seamlessly integrated, thanks in part to the talents of Oscar winning cinematographer Antony Dod Mantle. Credit is also due to Howard for being able to realize this vision, and to his longtime film editors Daniel P. Haley and Mike Hill. It leads to many exciting moments. “Rush” works the best when it’s on the racetrack rather than in someone’s house.

The performances from the two leads also help carry the film. Hemsworth proves he’s more than just an over muscled Marvel action hero. He does possess some real acting ability. He’s never really worked off of a great screenplay though. I’d like to see him do a film one day with a great script and see what he can do. He’s worked with many talented filmmakers; now he needs a screenplay. Even with the lack of depth written for him here, he still able to portray to character well enough that we do end up rooting for him at times.

The star of this film is German actor Brühl. He’s an actor I first saw in a small German film about ten years ago called “Good Bye Lenin!” where he turned in an amazing and emotionally charged performance. American audiences were first introduced to him as the war-hero-turned-actor in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”. His performance here is, not surprisingly, sensational. The film is being advertised on television and in trailers as being about Hemsworth’s James Hunt character, but this isn’t accurate. Brühl’s Niki Lauda is the star of the film. He’s magnificent in this film, and the only true bright spot in an otherwise average film. Now that Brühl is a recognizable face in American cinema, his career should really take off.

There’s nothing wrong with “Rush”; it’s an enjoyable film. Some parts might be a little drawn out, but they are few and far between. Otherwise, it has pretty quick pace. It’s a lot of fun during the racing scenes, but there aren’t too many to speak about. Most of the racing season is glossed over with montages to make room for more scenes of people sitting and talking. The advertisements show you exactly what this movie is all about. You won’t get anything more that what you’re expecting. That doesn’t mean it’s bad – because it’s not – but it’s far from the exceptional work we’ve come to expect from a film with Ron Howard’s name on the poster.