The Avengers Review

It's been only four years since Iron Man began moviegoers down the road that would lead to this. So much hype surrounded this movie before there was even a script attached to it, that it seemed there was no way it could live up to the expectations. I'm happy to say that director Joss Whedon and company have accomplished one of the more amazing feats in summer movies in a long time.

The fact that Marvel and Universal/Disney were able to achieve something as big and expansive as their own universe of movies is an extraordinary feat on its own. The fact that each movie is at least pretty decent, with The Avengers topping them all, is even more amazing. As far back as I can remember, there hasn't really been an event like the Marvel Universe played out in movies, ever. It's a movie event unlike anything we've seen recently, and probably won't see again for a long time.

The movie doesn't really have what you would call a complicated plot. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) plans to take over Earth and rule as its supreme king, or something. The Avengers are called in to stop him. That's really all there is to it. But the movie doesn't need an overly complicated plot. The Avengers is more about marveling at having four of the biggest comic book characters on screen together, all played perfectly by the chosen actors, and the interactions they have together. Whedon does a great job of giving each of the main characters, Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) equal screen time. Even the role players, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) have great parts. Whedon's script does a fine job of bridging the gaps these characters have with each other, while making the story entertaning, suspensful, and funny all at the same time.

I couldn't help but remember old Saturday morning cartoons while watching The Avengers; the opening scene especially. This kind of thinking works perfectly here. The only problem is that the movie becomes a little too comedic at times, with the characters having witty dialouge just for the sake of witty dialouge. It's not too the point where it's annoying or frustrating, but it gets somewhat unnerving towards the end. There are several crowd pleasing moments that come from them, however.

I also want to note that the 3D conversion the movie had in post production is simply not worth it. The movie wasn't shot in 3D, but it was known during production that it would be converted. The 3D has no added value; many scenes are hardly converted that I couldn't tell the difference with my glasses off. I would, however, recommend seeing the movie on a digital screen in 2D. The digital will give an extra glossy look to make the visuals pop more.

The movie clocks in at just under two and a half hours, which is quite a long running time, but goes by fairly quickly thanks to constant action and dialogue scenes that all have their own sense of purpose. Far too often movies like this have their characters try to find some sort of inner meaning, or overcome a personal struggle. That works terrifically in films like The Dark Knight, but here, all we're looking for is good action and a fun time. 

The action scenes are pure bliss. I was worried Whedon wouldn't be able to pull off the big action scenes that well, but he does a surprisingly good job, especially towards the end, with several long tracking shots that, although mostly CGI, still are very cool to watch.
 
I was really happy with the performance from Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. I thought he was a great choice for the role, but was wary that he would have a minor part behind the "big three". There was controversy when it was discovered Edward Norton wouldn't be returning as Banner for the movie, but I have to say I agree with the decision. While Norton is a great actor, and did a fine job in The Incredible Hulk, I never thought he was very convincing as Banner. He just simply doesn't have that scientist look to him. Ruffalo has that look, and I'm pleased he's going to be with Marvel for the long haul as Banner.

While the movie was playing, I couldn't help but think that this summer is maybe the beginning of the end for big comic book movies. While The Avengers and its "prequels" were all executed in a terrific way, it's hard to imagine where these characters go from here. Of course, there are already sequels planned, with Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 scheduled for release in 2013. But it just feels as if there was such a build up for The Avengers I worry that people will now begin to lose interest in superhero films. There may also be the issue of too much of a good thing. DC has the release of The Dark Knight Rises later this summer, and the Superman reboot, Man of Steel, is scheduled for 2013. Don't forget The Amazing Spider-Man and Men in Black 3 this summer as well. There's also rumors they are planning a Justice League movie, with Man of Steel being the start.

I just worry that with how successful The Avengers already is, studios will now shell out any superhero or comic book adaptation they can think of, and look for a profit, which will no doubt result in terrible overkill for the genre. However there are good things happening with this genre as well. Marvel has had great success with this series, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight saga has wowed critics and moviegoers alike. It's no doubt that this genre is here to stay for the long haul, even if the general public loses interest after awhile.

With that being said though, The Avengers is not only a great accomplishment, it's so far the best movie of 2012, and a terrific start to the summer movie season. The only question I have is: where do these characters go from here? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out.

A-/B+

The People Behind the Camera

I'm pretty excited about the ideas I have for the blog to keep it updated and to keep myself writing. Movie-going and review writing is pretty slow these days for me, simply because there isn't a whole lot out there that is appealing at this point. This first series I have in mind is one that I may never truly "finish", but definitely want to start.

It's going to be an ongoing series I'm (tentatively) calling "The People Behind the Camera". Some call them directors, others auteurs, but for the sake of making this an open idea, this is what I'm calling it for now. What exactly is an auteur? To put it simply, it's a director that has a distinctive creative vision, which can be seen in each of his or her work as if they were the sole author of the film. In other words, even though a film may be written and produced by someone else, the director is seen as the primary creator, because of his or her personal ideas and visions, of the story.

In my opinion, I think directors can be more famous than the stars they use in their films. Back in the 50's and 60's, people became excited for a new Hitchcock film not because of who starred in it, but because of who was in the director's chair. Hitchcock was sort of the first "director diva", who paved the way for people like Stanley Kubrik, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Steven Spielberg. Think about it: how many times have your heard someone say, "let's go see the new Spielberg movie"? When a good director comes out with a new movie, it's like a must-see event in my mind, sort of along the lines of March Madness, or the World Series.

What I want to do with this series at first is shine a light on directors that are working today that should, or already are, in that same "diva" status as Hitchcock. Now, I'm not going to say that these directors are as good or better than the likes of Hitchcock and Kubrik, but I do think their body of work is worth recognizing. Depending on the director, I may study their best films individually, while also pinpointing those themes that make the director an auteur, or, in some cases, have one post focusing on the director's entire body of work. It mostly depends on the amount of films the director has made. For instance, I'd go a lot more in depth on Steven Spielberg than I would, say, Michel Gondry. This is simply because Gondry only has, in my opinion, one work of recognition, even though he shows his vision in all of his movies.

I also want to point out I won't necessarily be talking only about a director's best achievements. Some of these people have films just as bad as their great ones, and it's important to see why these films don't work and the great ones do.

I know this sounds like a really artsy and self-indulgent thing to do, but I hope that it doesn't turn out that way. I hope that it becomes a way for you, and others, to look at these directors differently when you see their films. Maybe you'll discover something you haven't noticed before. I hope I can point out a few ideas that can get people interested in seeing more films by a director, or to become interested in someone they may not have been initially.

It's going to be an ongoing idea: one that doesn't have an end date or a definitive amount of people attached. I may get away from it come awards time and go back to it, or I may continue through with a new film, or director, every week. I may also cover multiple directors at once. Some of the directors I hope to talk about at some point are: David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel and Ethan Coen, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and a slew of others.

However, I'm going to start with one man who's directing a pretty big movie coming out this summer: Christopher Nolan. I'll be looking at all seven of his feature films, writing about each one individually, while also looking at the over-arching themes and ideas seen throughout his films. I'm hoping I can have the post about Following up in the next week, and have all seven movies done by the time The Dark Knight Rises is released in July.