Review: Avengers - Age of Ultron (2D)

Conquering heroes The Avengers return in their second outing as an ensamble cast. This time they must defend Humanity against a peacekeeping AI developed by Tony Stark after it goes rogue.

Is it wrong to say anything negative about a Marvel property these days?
*Cinema Cocoa brings up the blast shields*
Okay so it is fair to say that the sequel has less limitations than its predecessor Avengers Assemble, since all the characters are established now and the story can give us both barrels, but is it possible that during the revelation that Avenger films work Marvel has become... overconfident?
Age of Ultron could be evidence to support this.

Now I am not saying it is bad: action set pieces are incredible; peaking at the Hulk Vs Hulkbuster fight, the humour is still top notch; everyone gets a go, even Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye and Ultron himself!
Speaking of Hawkeye, he is probably the best character for development. The poor guy starts out the movie getting injured and out of commission again, but miraculously Renner is given character material to work with that some of the lead cast haven't had! Well done, Marvel.
Ultron himself is cool, voiced by a gravely James Spader, here's a villain Marvel has been looking for. Malicious, calculating and born from all of Tony Stark's worst traits.

Another boon for the film is its heavy representation of our heroes saving civilians. It is worth remembering that Avengers Assemble had been directly compared to DC's Man of Steel as being the better representation of superhero justice. One can't deny that this feels like a direct attack on DC's property. 

But telling you this film has great dialogue and great action is a no brainer. I think people would have left half way through had those things not been present; this is an Avengers film, if you even remotely like the first one you will find enjoyment here.
But...

This film feels sloppy. It feels rushed, and more importantly it feels utterly careless with what the non-Marvel fandom audience can consume. In an effort to outdo the first film, Ultron cuts narrative corners, makes unreasonable logic jumps without explaining it and possibly the worst offender for me: random exposition dumps.
I can accept, barely, characters literally jumping from place to place between cuts, but having the Avengers (our lead team of superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) learning about the crucial Infinity Stones through some ridiculously contrived illusion/dream/prophetic vision of Thor's, that's unlocked by newcomer Scarlet Witch's powers, and distilled by standing in some underground pool.... No.
We know what Infinity Stones are: Star Lord and friends had them explained really really well in Guardians of the Galaxy, don't make it look like you are laboured in finding a place to tell your main protagonists this incredibly important information. Especially when your screenplay is so heavily invested in explosions and battles.

Another very unnecessary addition were "The Twins", introduced in Captain America 2's end credit stinger, Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch. While they aren't in any way bad, and I can see how the franchise wants to move forward, for this film they are completely unnecessary.
A final note that almost slipped by me, Ultron's final act does little for the female characters; the usually strong and capable Black Widow is randomly imprisoned. I have no idea why, and it is so brief that I almost forgot about it.

Oh dear, that's a lot of negatives isn't it?
Avengers: Age of Ultron is an excellent showcase action movie, it has a quick fire pace and really does have some great moments between the characters. It feels like a reunion party with Don Cheadle's Warmachine helping out among others, and an early drunken scene of "Who can lift Thor's hammer?" is memorable. Many quips too, Captain America absently saying to himself: "If the hammer is in an elevator, the elevator isn't worthy," all give a great chuckle from me.

Marvel need to be careful. Bonanza is all well and good, spectacle will bring the crowds for a short while, but you are trying to tell a story, a narrative, over hours and hours of film. So tell it. 
Don't get stuck in a formula (which you already have, in my opinion) otherwise I will become less intrigued by Avengers milestones and more intrigued by new properties ala Guardians. 

Just, write good.

Review: Iron Man 3

Stark's getting too big for his iron clad boots, so big that there's no room for anyone else!

With an advanced, advanced preview I can give you my thoughts on Iron Man 3, and I can tell you right now, you aren't going to expect half of what happens! (the trailer threw me completely off the scent)

The film is set after the events in Avengers Assemble and we see a burnt out Tony Stark who is overwhelmed with the hero worshiping and the memories of his near-death experience. The events in Avengers are game changing, and he isn't ready for competitors pioneering in bio-warfare technology or the terrorist known only as The Mandarin.

The good stuff first. Robert Downey Jr is still on fire as Tony Stark (and no matter what I might say to lessen this experience, fans of his will still love it for him) his dialogue is still snappy and loaded with sarcastic wit. The action sequences are very creative and ludicrously dynamic what with Tony's newest suit's ability to fragment and locate him, or for it to fly and work remotely. Almost all of the action sequences revolve around this trick (if you thought the suitcase suit was bizarre, you ain't seen nothing yet!)
There are several occasions were Stark has to make do without the suit, and these are definitely the best moments in the film! Hilarious. 

But if I can now dive into the problems... I didn't like the film's antagonist. Now I may start wobbling into spoiler territory here, but early on in the film we are introduced to an indestructible soldier. Think of a fiery rendition of the Terminator's T-1000 (reforming lost limbs and all) and these soldiers become the film's main threat.
The special effects are great, but the villain's motivations and personality are paper thin. We know and love Tony Stark, now the story needs to give us some convincing villain for him to face and what we get here is not the answer. Yes, I will go out and say it: Iron Man 2's Whiplash was more interesting.
My issue is with the film's overriding focus on Stark himself (what, I hear you cry) because the story's justification for this feels shallow and unrefined:

"The love triangle in this movie is between Tony, Pepper and his obsession with those suits." - Producer Kevin Feige.

That is the film's meat at the end of the day and honestly I felt it was an insufficient theme for a third (technically fourth) outing for these characters.  

Urgh, I can't say the film wow'ed me. It isn't your typical "trilogy third act". In fact it is remarkably underplayed at times and its ponderous nature did make me a little restless: "Where are we going with this? Why are we here, talking to this character?" (especially that little kid...) which I pin almost entirely on the poorly established and executed villains.

Creative action sequences, laugh-out-loud funny moments, but unconvincing villains and a ponderous theme, makes Iron Man 3 good, but not great.

Additional Marshmallows: I really cannot say more to explain why elements don't work without spoiling the film. Let's just say there's a twist involved (I don't even know how comicbook geeks will handle it!) Go and see it for yourselves!

       
        

Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes franchise has evolved into more of a Game of Farce and Explosions than shadowy intrigue or mystery.


While his accomplice Dr Watson marries and prepares for his honeymoon, master detective Sherlock Holmes begins to uncover a spider's web of conspiracy throughout greater Europe. The two must help a gypsy fortune teller and uncover secrets for an all out war.
My love of consistency in film sequels is mostly satisfied here; the visuals are still old and worn, the soundtrack is still excellent but most importantly, Downey Jr and Law are still excellent as the two leads! They maintain their on-screen chemistry and look like they are genuinely enjoying themselves.
Unfortunately that is where the quality ends, and as much as it pains me to say, A Game of Shadows didn't satisfy after the potential first act. Director Ritchie still keeps the audience in the dark about the clues Holmes finds, while the actual conspiracy is pretty simple; Moriarty is revealed early on, and I feel the film could have benefited in keeping him as a shadowy "puppeteer" until the end.
Moriarty is about as subtle as a brick to the face; preferring to annihilate our heroes with Gatling guns, "Little Hansel" (a gigantic artillery cannon) or an assassin who can only kill the film's extras, rather than with any insidious plots.
The goofiness is turned up to eleven, and while it is fun to watch, there is discomfort in how unintelligent the entire thing feels.


The finale is excellent, the characters are all gems, but around them is a script and screenplay far too infantile and hamfisted for such intellectual property.

And here is my original review for the first Sherlock Holmes from 2009. See my enthusiasm for the sequel!

Another contender for top spots on people's person charts, sure did get a lot of attention even with Avatar out at the same time.
I must admit, Sherlock Holmes looks great and has an awesome soundtrack, plus the film itself has a real rustic, gritty quality. The characters in Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are perfect combinations and I can't wait to see more from this cast and crew. So... what's wrong with it?
The plot and the handling of the mystery. I am not alone in the belief that this film gives the audience absolutely nothing to go on. You watch the film and see completely extraneous clues and information flung left and right (very elegantly thrown, I might say) but we have no idea what's happening. The audience feels incapable of figuring out even the smallest of puzzle pieces, until Holmes goes through a great monologue about how he'd figured it out ages ago.
Now I know giving information to the audience could make it predictable... but seriously, you have to give us *something* to work with!It is a great opening film, no doubt of that, but it is mostly setup for a promising sequel!