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: Godzilla

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

It seems to me that the monster movie genre would be one of the most difficult genres to screw up. Yet somehow Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin managed to do just that with their atrocious 1998 version of "Godzilla." Most of the film made absolutely no sense and paid no tribute to the original source material. Furthermore, it ruined the film careers of just about all those involved. Now, 16 years later, filmmaker Gareth Edwards tries his hand at Godzilla. His result is a vast improvement on the 1998 movie (which isn't very hard to do) but it still doesn't exactly feel very satisfying in the end.

Our main character here is Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Navy Lieutenant and member of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team returning home to San Francisco from a mission overseas. His wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and son Sam are happy to have him back, but their excitement is short lived. Ford is called up to go tend to his father Joe (Bryan Cranston) who has been detained by police in Japan for trespassing in a quarantined radiation zone. Joe is trying to prove that some “thing” caused a meltdown at the nuclear power plant where he worked 15 years ago. Of course no one believes him. 

And of course he's right. A team of scientists, lead by Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), is hiding a cocoon that feeds off the radiation of the former plant. The creature, which they call a Muto, breaks out and starts terrorizing everything. But something else knows that this Muto is here. A giant lizard from the sea that Serizawa calls Godzilla who only has one purpose: to prey on these creatures. 

"Godzilla" has all the makings of a pretty fantastic old school monster movie, but it ultimately falls short of being that great. It really has nothing to do with the story because the screenplay by Max Bornstein is surprisingly solid. There is plenty of rooting interest in these characters, especially since they dedicate so much time to setting up the back-story of the Brody family. It's pretty dark too with very little humor built into the script.

The problem is there are very few scenes featuring monsters in this monster movie. Isn't that what you want to see in a monster movie? One shot shows two monsters ready to engage in epic battle, but the camera is behind two doors as they shut. The last thing we see are these two creatures inches away from each other but we don’t see them fighting. Two big ugly monsters fighting each other is what makes the old "Godzilla" movies so entertaining. You won't hear me say this often but I think the thing that hurts this "Godzilla" the most is the story.

I find it hard to fault the movie for this, but I have to. The movie's title character doesn't even show up for an hour, and after that he’s never the star. You're paying for monsters fighting, and that's what they should be delivering. But where I'm torn is that the dramatic narrative is actually very polished. I find it very hard to fault anything like that, but this is an instance where “more monster/less story” would have been desirable.

Director Gareth Edwards hasn't done much else before being handed the large budget for this film, and he proves himself to be a success. He handles the well-developed script well and does not go overboard with his use of CGI. Sure, the monsters and the destruction they leave behind aren’t real, but it blends in seamlessly with the organic action in the foreground.

And the monster battles when we do get to see them are great and enormously entertaining. Edwards pays great homage to the original "Godzilla" movies by letting the monsters have at it with no regard to anything around them. Even the score from composer Alexandre Desplat has a nostalgic feel for the monster movies of old. But he doesn't maintain that old style throughout the film. He adds some nice dissonant cues to the more intense moments, which help prove that he's one of the best music composers working today. 

"Godzilla" is more than just a standard monster movie and it’s certainly better than any Roland Emmerich disaster film. There's a lot of depth in this movie, which is nice to see from a big budget studio picture. But that gets in the way of us wanting to see what we came to the movies to see. There's very little Godzilla in "Godzilla." I can't say I loved it because it didn't deliver what it promises by the title. The story is great, don’t get me wrong, but that’s not what we paid to see. It's supposed to be a monster movie, and that's not what this is.

Review: Oldboy

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

I was going to pretend that Spike Lee’s “Oldboy” was not a remake of one of the best films of the last decade. I was going to sit there and watch “Oldboy” as if I didn’t know what was going to happen. I was not going to write my review for “Oldboy” and not compare it to the classic film from Chan-wook Park. Then I saw Spike Lee’s “Oldboy”. And now I just can’t help myself.

Josh Brolin helps butcher a classic film

It’s October 1993 as the movie opens. Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) works in a New York ad agency. To put it politely, Joe is not a very nice person. He’s a raging alcoholic who is only interested in looking out for himself and his business. He doesn’t even want to attend his daughter’s third birthday because he has an important client to meet for dinner. After making a fool of himself at said dinner, Joe wanders aimlessly drunk through Chinatown until he passes out.

When he wakes, he’s in a dingy motel room, but there isn’t anyway out. He’s been kidnapped and is being held prisoner. All he has is a bed, a toilet, a shower, a TV and a copy of the Bible. On the TV, he finds out that his wife has been brutally murdered and the he is the prime suspect. He also learns through a true crime show that his daughter has been given up for adoption. Time passes and after 20 years, he is set free. He’s given a stack of 100 dollar bills, some sunglasses and an iPhone 5.

Enlisting the help of his old friend Chucky (Michael Imperioli) and an assistant at a mobile medical unit named Marie Sebastian (Elizabeth Olsen), Joe sets out to find out who kidnapped him. He keeps receiving calls on his iPhone from a blocked number. The voice on the other end (Sharlto Copley) tells him he has his daughter and he’ll kill her if he doesn’t play the game. Joe needs to figure out who this man is and why he kidnapped him. Otherwise, it’s lights out for the daughter he really wants to know.  

Min-sik Choi and Hye-jeong Kang in the vastly superior
2003 version of "Oldboy"

I fully intended on judging this film as a stand-alone movie and not a remake of one of the best films to ever come from the Korean peninsula. Halfway through the film, however, I couldn’t help but wonder why this film was deemed necessary to be remade. I suppose there are plenty of people who were never privileged to see the original Chan-wook Park masterpiece. The vast majority of the movie going public is probably very unfamiliar with this story. If you’re going to remake something, you might as well make one that most of the people haven’t seen.

But you also need to bring something new to the table. I’m not suggesting that Spike Lee’s “Oldboy” is a shot-for-shot remake of Park’s “Oldboy” but there isn’t any new substance, depth or complexities to the story or the characters that weren’t in the original. This version does not find Lee at his finest form. Far from it. What we have here is a film that seems to scare Lee. He seems timid in his approach to remaking such an acclaimed classic, even if the cinephiles were the only ones in the United States to have seen it.

Lee tries to incorporate too much of a Korean homage to his film. Korean films have their own very distinct voice. It’s much different than what American audiences are used to seeing. Someone could look at a Korean film and think some of the action, pacing, editing, photography and dialogue are on the campy side. While Lee keeps the vast majority of the film feeling very much like an American film, his occasional homages feel largely out of place. One scene in particular involves Brolin fighting a gang of people. It doesn’t quite fit the tone that’s trying to be achieved and comes across looking very out of place.

Furthermore, Lee included Samuel L. Jackson in a minor role. Jackson is typical Jackson: loud speech and plenty of profanity. He’s also dressed in some equally loud costumes too. His costumes scream Asian cinema. His character, however, is distinctly American.

Brolin doesn’t ever come across as the hero he’s meant to be. I found myself easily able to root for Min-sik Choi in the original. Brolin just seems like some arrogant guy that I wouldn’t even be interested in striking up a random conversation with at a bar. You can’t root for someone who isn’t likeable. The screenplay from “Thor” scribe Mark Protosevich gives him absolutely nothing to work with.

The one bright spot in this entire disaster is Elizabeth Olsen who plays Brolin’s investigative counterpart. She’s already carved out quite a career for herself in only a few years. She has easily escaped what could have been an extremely large shadow cast over her by her former megastar sisters. While Protosevich also gives her very little in the script, Olsen has been able to build the character up all on her own. We’re given very little backstory, but she seems much more relatable and much more empathetic. Olsen saves this movie from being completely forgettable, but she alone doesn’t make this a worthwhile venture.

“Oldboy” should have been off limits from Hollywood. If we do have to have remakes, then I think that looking at small foreign films is the route to go instead of remaking overplayed Hollywood films everyone knows. But internationally acclaimed classics such as Park’s “Oldboy” need to be left alone. For those who haven’t seen the original, I recommend you get on that right away. It is available on Netflix’s instant streaming service.

The only catch is the film is dubbed instead of subtitled. That’s a cardinal sin for foreign language films. Rather than reading it, you have to listen to some guy who got paid SAG minimum to sit in a recording booth and mumble his way through a script. And then the final product looks awful because the dialogue doesn’t even match the movement of the actor’s lips (cue jokes about old “Godzilla” movies). While dubbing this classic film’s soundtrack is an extremely disrespectful move, it comes nowhere near the blasphemy of its remake.