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.
This Marvel train ain't stopping for anything! The Winter Soldier is quite possibly one of the best entries into the film series yet!
Captain Steve Rogers tries to find a sense of place in the modern world working for S.H.I.E.L.D. But when Nick Fury is targeted by a mysterious assassin, Rogers discovers that his patriotism could just be used as a pawn for corrupt political forces.
Captain America, as a singular character in the current Avengers team, has the most groundwork and the most to build upon in a sequel. There's a lot to work with! Tony Stark and Thor had mostly completed stories when going into their sequels, but the Captain did not; he's been left untouched since his debut in 2011. This is a great boon for The Winter Soldier.
The film opens with a very stealth driven action sequence with the Captain and Black Widow taking on a terrorist takeover at sea. This is heralding more to come; the film's entire storyline is about espionage, spy networks and ambiguous political intent. The story is intelligent and interweaving, frequently summoning up ghosts from Steve Rogers' past, but in no unlikely manner, in fact the linkage with The First Avenger is were a lot of the film's intensity comes from. That and its not-so-heavy-handed social and political subtexts.
Of course, it isn't all talking and mystery (though I was surprised at how moody the film became) there is still plenty of action. The Winter Soldier himself is an excellent addition to the Marvel mythos, the soundtrack adding to the foreboding atmosphere around him and the film shows how deadly he really can be. The Captain too gets a much better sense of strength here too (I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt he was a little underpowered in Avengers Assemble) being thrown about, running through walls, using his shield in such marvelously silly ways. It is greatly entertaining when the bullets and punches start flying.
It is also a surprisingly brutal film. With Captain America's origins and current story trapped in comparatively realistic settings (we are dealing with countries, governments and spies, not gods and space aliens) even to Iron Man standards, the action is intense and scenes get quite dark. People are shot, often viciously, they are wounded, they bleed, even tortured. A clear sign that Marvel aren't only delivering more mature content, but are confident in doing so.
That said, there's a healthy sense of humour in there too. Maybe not as riotous as some of Tony Stark's adventures, but it is there.
I have trouble thinking of what's wrong with the film. The action scenes sometimes fall into a lot of shaky camera work, again, but other times it is fine. This could be due in part to the 3D, which I had no time for; just see the film regularly, the 3D does nothing. Some of the plot might seem predictable, but I imagine the younger audiences will be totally captivated.
All in all a great movie, and it stands alone and as an Avengers continuation very well! What is remarkable is that Marvel is successfully giving each of its character's movies a distinct theme and mood. Like reading the different comics, there is a difference. You know you are watching Marvel, but the heroes have their own presence and strength to give.
Additional Marshmallows: As if you need to ask, yes there's two extra clips during the credits! Like with Thor 2, there's an important, longer clip after the initial "graphical credits" (connotations to Avengers 2: Age of Ultron!) and then a shorter, slightly less important clip after the regular credit role. However, the credit role isn't too long.
An interesting piece of film trivia packaged with some excellent casting choices.
Hitchcock follows the "master of suspense" Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma in the true story of their struggle to produce the classic film Psycho, and how the film was nearly never made.
While I can't say the film gripped me necessarily, it was certainly well produced and well acted; the set dressing, costume and make-up are very convincing and immerses you in the time period, which I think is the best a film like this can hope to achieve. After all, we know the film Psycho gets made and is a huge success.
I'd say that Anthony Hopkins appearance as Hitchcock is perhaps the weakest in appearance, but that's only because Hitchcock is a very identifiable man. He does however convey the power, conviction and troubled mind of the man.
Award for best dead ringer goes to James D'arcy as Norman Bates' actor Anthony Perkins, disturbingly similar!
I guess I knew very little of Hitchcock and the sort of man he was, so this film was both eye opening and a little lukewarm at the same time. We see his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) struggle as her husband becomes possessive towards his beautiful leading lady Janet Leigh (Scarlet Johansson) and I can't say I even knew about this! So the film focuses almost entirely upon the hardships Alma dealt with being married to such a creative man, and the sacrifices he is prepared to put them through.
My favourite parts were the scenes obviously put in to show the time period of film, specifically the censorship rules. You cannot show a toilet! At all! The film is quite fascinating in these respects.
It is more about the people involved than the film itself. I don't think I will watch Psycho with any particular added intrigue, more I will watch any Hitchcock film in general with more awareness of the man's techniques and personality.
I'd say its recommended for film buffs and biopic fans. Most people will probably find it either slow or not particularly special. The casting choices and the production efforts are remarkable though.
