Avengers: Infinity War – Review

The third Avengers film and the 19th (yeah…NINETEENTH!) installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a triumph of undertaking in scale and tenacity. It’s among the best comic books films ever made and the epitome of ten years of films that changed the foundations of blockbuster movies. It avoids the mistakes of the earlier Avengers films by establishing a genuine threat that invites audiences to empathize and share in the emotional whirlwinds which drive Avengers Infinity War down paths filled with dark patches, loss and death — even if our Internet-saviness informs us that many of the repercussions are likely to be undone in the next installment.

Guardians of the Galaxy–Review

It’s dangerously easy to get seduced by all of the positives found within James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy.  It’s standard action fare, but still contains something fresh and innocent.  It forgoes the formula that plagues so many summer films.  Its neither cynical or marred by post-9/11 imagery, convolution, and dourness.  Its faulty plot can be forgiven thanks to Marvel’s sheer tenacity; it embraces its inane, ridiculousness and has fun with it.  In fact, Guardians of the Galaxy is, by far, Marvel’s greatest risk and, therefore, the most rewarding.

The biggest problem is its threadbare plot line.  At first, the story feels complex.  But after you filter out the numerous planets and alien terminology, it merely boils down with our heroes, foes, and all-things-dancing-in-between pursuing an all-important thing.  These Marvel films loves MacGuffins don’t they? 

Captain America 2–Review

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a tiny miracle.  Despite being a cog in the well-oiled Marvel/Disney machine,  The Winter Soldier avoids feeling like a piece of mechanization.  It succeeds as an independent, inventive and surprising suspenseful installment.  In fact, Captain America 2 is the first tie-in movie since the original Iron Man that feels like a self-sustaining entity rather than a commercial for a dozen tie-in films and a billion dollars in merchandising. (Don’t worry folks, you still get two post-credit scenes that hint of more to come.)

Despite the success of prior films — with the Avengers laying the new Hollywood gold standard for large universe tie-in features — Marvel has been smart by letting each solo property reside within the confines of its own universe.  Captain America exists in a world that is surprisingly grounded in comparison to the fantastic Thor or the sci-fi driven Iron Man and Hulk.  This enables directors Anthony and Joe Russo to create film vastly different from any other Avenger film, even the original Captain America. 

2015! Where We’re Going We Don’t Need…Those

It’s the year 2015!  Marty McFly, a teenage time-traveler arrives 30 years into the future and tours a strange version of his hometown of Hill Valley.  He spots flying cars, robot waiters, fax machines plugged into every room and a holographic preview for the upcoming film Jaws 19!  “The shark still looks fake,” Marty muses.  

Well, as we fast approach the actual 2015, promises of car flight are quickly being squandered — nevermind any promises of hover boards or self-drying jackets.  The writers of Back to the Future Part II couldn’t even foresee the most viable form of telecommunication: cell phones!   Nor could they have predicted such devises would become the most coveted item in the known universe!  (How many people read the news on Syrian crisis?  Now how many people opened news media the moment Apple announced the Iphone 5c?  I rest my case!)  In fact, the future is so incorrect, it even shows a stupid teenager grabbing for fruit from a futuristic kitchen tray, when, in reality, the kid probably grab something way less healthy — from a bowl.    

But a Jaws 19!?  Maybe the notion of successful film franchises reaching extreme installment numbers has become less of a joke and more of a sad reality.  Despite being two years away, the Internet (another unforeseen technological wonder.  Sorry fax machines!) has provided us with some semblance of a magic globe to prepare us for the coming future events.  There’s a string of announcements to help us prophesize the cinematic output of 2015, which will surely become the biggest summer in Hollywood history.  Naturally, they’re all established franchises. 

Let’s begin: 

Mission Impossible (TBA):  I defend Mr. Tom Cruise to this day.   Despite his recent stable of underperformers, I suspect Tom will be running victory laps the next time he scales laser sights (and sofa seat cushions) in his fifth secret mission.  MI4 was the best installment yet; its episodic structure allowed the franchise liberties to reinvent itself and incurred the same level stress-inducing tension across multiple continents.  It remains a passable franchise that will hopefully ride high off its rehabilitation delivered by Pixar director, Brad Bird for the last outing.

Fantastic Four (March):  The first two dreadful films left Fox with an uphill battle to climb.  A second attempt with only generate comparisons between this and the recent batch of successful team-based heroics,  which I doubt Fox can overcome.  A rebranded Fantastic Four is a desperate attempt by the studio to ignite a fresh franchise and possible larger universe shared with the X-Men, another saga facing its twilight years.  It simply five years too late.  Flame out!

Harry Potter spinoffs (TBA): I truly enjoyed this series, even if I always felt that it was essentially five films stretched out into eight: There’s new teacher who’s reveal to be a servant to Valdemort; Harry and crew mope around the library for hours and discuss their predicament; Valdemort takes four films to gestate from fetus to a noseless Ralph Fiennes and takes another four to be vanquished.  Now the saga is being elongated even further.  With the Potter group facing adulthood (both onscreen and off) there’s the obvious inclination to spring a new crop of films about the next generation.  But Potter’s world rested solely on the holy scriptures of J.K. Rowling.  Without her direct involvement — there’s promises she’ll churn out the screenplays, but I doubt she’ll have full authorship — there’s a danger that Potter’s successors will lack the same magic.  Plus, the saga needs time to foment.  Let’s enjoy the Muggle world for a little while longer.

Jurassic Park (Summer): I want a Jurassic Parkfilm that builds upon Steven Spielberg’s foundation that’s surrounded by 50 miles of electrical fence and the most aggressive carnivorous animals we’ve ever seen.  (Seriously, are raptors smart enough to open doors but dumb enough after already downing two humans, one of whom was Samuel L. Jackson?  Maybe they’d be satisfied if they got first dibs on Wayne Knight…) The Jurassic Park franchise had already run tired by the second film.  The villains were restricted to being single-minded angry predators who roared, destroyed and pursued.  The friendly herbivores were slowly demoted to brief money shots, which gave opportunities to parade John Williams’ fabulous musical theme.  An ideal Jurassic Park sequel would be a film in which the park actually opened and was greeted with thousands of tourists.  Obviously, we can expect mass carnage.  But perhaps the next installment will propel beyond the monster-around-the-corner gimmick.  It’s been 20 years and special effects are no longer dazzling enough to break records.  This installment capitalize on the a more original conception rather than the dull monster movies they ultimately became.  Otherwise, just keep these dinosaurs extinct. 

Star Wars (TBA): When the scroll reveals Episode VII, it will be ten years since the last Star Wars installment put a final ribbon on Lucas’ second trilogy outing into a galaxy far, far away.  But, unlike Harry Potter, this series’ newest trilogy might benefit without the involvement of its creator.  Although director  J.J. Abrams is not the second coming that so many “Lost” junkies decree, he’s a proven master at making fun, albeit disposable films.  The inevitably announcement of returning veterans Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and a very cantankerous Harrison Ford may pose a double-edged lightsaber for the franchise.  However, Disney has maintained the integrity of its recently acquired properties (Marvel, Pixar) and could produce a saga that won’t necessarily reinvent, but might provide a respectable return to form and undo the damage left behind from the prequels.  It is a franchise I await with trepidation, but with a morsel of new hope. 

Avengers 2: Age of Vultron (May): I gotta concede that Marvel is not brushing aside its nerdy origins with a title like that.  Unlike Abrams’ Star Trek, Avengers aims to broaden its comic-book influence rather than its audience.  Given the original’s $1.5. billion intake worldwide, I’d argue that’s a safe tactic: You already got the world’s attention…just keep em happy!  Disney’s hold on Downey for two more installments was the wisest move: You can make do without Iron Man for a while, but you can’t live without him with Avengers.  The only obstacle may be the two more years we must wait, which will provide a series of tests on the longevity on its supporting players like the Cap’n and Thor. 

Finding Dory (June):  Pixar possesses the power to make me cry more than any other studio (or most life events for that matter).  But their feeble attempts to dip back into the ocean have caused me emotional turmoil in other ways.  All may turn ok for the Finding Nemo sequel with the return of original scribe/director Andrew Stanton, which may keep this fish from getting flushed straight down the toilet.  Meanwhile, Pixar’s most bankable sequel The Incredibles remains MIA and their original, daring concepts are being slowly swept away. 

Bond (November): One of cinema’s institutions remains licensed to kill after 50 years!  Bond’s most recent adventure was one of the best and the upcoming sequel’s plans to restore some of its classic Bond motifs is a welcome one — even though it leaves the skeptic in me wondering how long it will before Daniel Craig starts surfing giant tidal waves and absconding inside invisible vehicles.  Bringing Skyfall director Sam Mendes back for another adventure leaves me hopeful.  Now just give Bond a decent beverage preference (Heineken??).  I’m thirsty for some vodka martinis, shaken or stirred. 

Batman/Superman (July)/JLA?  Warners faces a dire franchise shortfall.  I cannot decree which decision is worse: Potter or DC?  Either option is a lame-duck, but Warner’s attempt to emulate the Marvel formula a losing battle.  I won’t bore you with my criticisms, which I admit grow as tiresome as Zack Snyder’s action sequences.    The studio’s questionable casting choices, its second-place finish, and lack of an original vision make DC’s crusade into the seemingly invulnerable comic-book craze may start to hit Kryptonite. 

Independence Day 2 (July): Will Smith’s recent box office faltering means that he’ll join the ranks of Harrison Ford, Stallone, Cruise, and Schwarzenegger with a return-to-roots career resuscitation.  But ID4, a film I truly loath, is overwhelming lauded by my friends and family for its seemingly innocent and fun ride.  If ID4 2 (or is it ID2, ID42??) sinks into dark, cynical territory (Man of Steel!) in keeping with the current movie trends, it will garner yawns and disdain.   Plus, Hollywood’s ramped world destruction model has worn audiences down in 2013.  The first film has demolished our favorite landmarks with director Roland Emmerich destroying the rest of them in his inferior follow-ups.  May the aliens’ ship stall before they try for a second invasion attempt! 

As long we’re discussing franchises, perhaps a Back to the Future Part 4 is within walking distance.  Despite the true 2015’s stark contrast from that which was prophesized back in 1989, there will still be movies, many of which are accompanied by a numeral. 

“The aliens still look fake!!”    

Superheroes Can’t Rescue Warner

So, I hated every singular ounce of Man of Steel.  But many of you didn’t…and, as a result, there will be many, many more.  Warner Bros — the studio behind this century’s most lucrative franchises like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Hangover, The Dark Knight Trilogy — has been banking on Superman’s return, not only in the hopes of restarting a fresh franchise, but a plethora of them.  WB’s DC comic book lineup, which includes Supes, Bats, as well as many other characters who have either failed cinematically (Green Lantern) or remain untested (Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman).  When Marvel’s Avengers became the third highest grossing film last year (only behind James Cameron’s Titanic and Avatar), WB started pushing even harder to accrue the same success with its own stable.   I suspect they’re too late.  

Now that franchises have become the Holy Grail of movie studios, Warner is more desperate than ever for its comic book properties to save face.  Its non-comic properties have either run dry (Potter, Hangover), remained dormant (Lethal Weapon, Dirty Harry, Gremlins), or approach their final curtain call (Lord of the Rings), Warner Bros is hedging its bets the comic book movies will remain the prominent genre in movies. 

The comic book craze may seem invulnerable; its risen to new heights thanks to The Avengers and its immediate sequel Iron Man 3, which propelled past the coveted billion dollar mark faster than you can yell “Excelsior” (you comic fans get it, right?).  Seeing infinite shades of green, studios like Sony, Fox, and Disney are prepping new installments of Thor, Captain America, X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four, just to name a few.  WB has already greenlit Superman’s sequel for a 2014 release.

Despite Hollywood optimism in all thing geek, I fear the craze has reached a peak and is dangerously close to over-saturation.  The sheer number of releases continues to increase.  This year will mark at least four major releases connected to a DC/Marvel brand.  Marvel’s stable alone has become so dense that its placing releases in Winter (Thor 2) and Spring (Captain America 2) just to keep from competing with themselves.

Warner Bros hopes that a Justice League feature will springboard its own share of solo efforts.  If they succeed, we could see as many 10-12 comic book titles hit our multiplexes in a singular year; a far cry from a decade ago when Marvel began its dominance in yearly increments (Spider-Man in 2002, Hulk in 2003, Fantastic Four in 2005).  We had time to relish each new fore into our nerdiest of fantasies.  Now we’re being bombarded with them.   

In just ten years, we’ve seen Batman, Spider-Man, Superman get face lifts and murmurs that X-Men, Fantastic Four, and even Daredevil will have soon have fresh, younger (and cheaper) casts and stories.  I suspect Disney will buy Robert Downey Jr. a small country just to retain his services for future Avenger films.  But if RDJ doesn’t bite, Disney will likely reboot their Iron Man series too.

At some point, we will grow tired of it all.  I believe the comic book film was already nearing a fragile turn with Superman Returns and Spider-Man 3 left films geeks in dismay.  But then 2008 came.  Christopher Nolan splashed a fresh coat of face paint on his diabolical Joker in The Dark Knight and Downey made Iron Man more pleasurable outside of the metal plating than within it.  The Avengers carried the franchises to new level of crowd-pleasing epic swag.  But after both Avengers and Superman destroy an entire city — whether it’s call New York or Metropolis — where do you go from here? 

Superman and Batman may seem infallible presently, but each have had their share of disasters and mishaps.  For example Batman Begins accrued a modest $50 million opening weekend, which looks downright feeble next to Dark Knight or Man of Steel.  But Begins was coming off the disastrous Batman and Robin — which, along with Spawn marked the end of one comic book era.  It wasn’t until 2000 that X-Men renewed audience interest (and studio faith) in the genre.  Despite Batman’s longevity, he had to “re-earn” his respect in the cinematic spectrum. 

Warner’s strategy remains safeguarded.  Despite Man of Steel’s little Easter Eggs — its references to Wayne Enterprises — the studio is playing close to the chest.  Unlike Marvel, which pushed full-speed ahead with an expanded universe and early promises for an Avengers movie, DC is hedging its bets.  Instead of using singular features to cross-promote a giant team-up film, WB is using a reverse philosophy, which, nevertheless, is aimed to reach the same quantity of releases per year. This means that any hopes of a slew of DC features won’t occur until 2016/2017 at the latest.  Will audiences be there to greet them?

Despite DC’s own bevy of unique characters (and who wouldn’t want to see WB try it’s hand at an Aquaman feature?), I cannot envision anything other than a direct copy of Marvel.  And despite your preference, there will be a large polarized audience.  Some will crave more from Marvel, whereas others will push for DC.  Comparisons will remain up to the point where we have two films which bills a half-dozen cats wearing spandex and masks.  It’s feasible that DC will take a page from Marvel and inject a unique spell over it’s individual comic properties — whatever they decide those will be.

But over saturation will become the genre’s Kryptonite.  Already, I’m seeing ads for Thor and not feeling the excitement, just a sense of deja vu.  “It’s Loki taunting Thor from a jail cell!”  “Wait, wasn’t this in ‘Avengers’?”  “No, that was in ‘Dark Knight’!”  “Nope, it was in ‘Silence of the Lambs!!'”  But Marvel as a whole has retained my interest.  Their films always entertain — some more than others.  DC, besides it Dark Knight trilogy, has unraveled as a series of films built upon focus group research and a lack of imagination.  So far, I’ve seen no signs that they won’t attempt to replicate the Marvel Methodology.

The universe is becoming far too crowded with tight-wearing demigods and not enough rationale for them all to co-exist.  I get the sense that I’m not alone as the tepid response to Wolverine’s trailers suggest.  If Marvel remained the only dog in this race, the genre would have better chances to keep movie-lovers engaged — and not bored.  The comic book resurgence was built on audience desires to finally see the X-Men and Spiderman on screen and for Superman and Batman to return after a long-winded absence.  Now, I get a sense that we’re getting everything from Santa and some of the presents will remain unopened or untouched.  There’s bound to be a time when audiences will be in need of rescuing — from the superhero. 

One final battle between the Avengers…and Batman!

I usually don’t care about childish feuds between the Hollywood elite.  There other issues to worry about, including whether I should eat one more cracker–and whether it requires another dab of crab dip.  But recently The Dark Knight cinematographer Wally Pfister criticized The Avengers, calling the film “appalling” and “they’d shoot from some angle and I’d think ‘Why is the camera there?’  Oh, I see, they spent half a million on a set and want to show it off.  It took me completely out of the movie…it was an illogical form of storytelling.”  Riddle me this…

Those who know me or read this blog may recall my recent criticisms of Christopher Nolan’s final chapter in his Batman saga.  First, it possesses muddled storytelling, strictly from a script perspective.  But one thing I initially omitted were the limitations in shot composition.  I stayed mum on that subject cause, frankly, most of my readers and friends couldn’t give a shit.  But now Pfister has gotten angry (Hulk-style) and criticized another film that, with all it’s faults, bests Batman on one thing: shots!

I’m always been unequivocally a proponent of film over digital.  There are benefits to both, but film has an aesthetic that digital has not yet captured.  So, in a way, I see Pfister’s point.  The Avengers looks wonderful in HD.  But it also falls into the trap of looking too clean, too pristine.  (For more on the subject, click here…and then here) Captain America sometimes looks cool and at other points the cinematography reveals the pajama like state of the costume design.  Nolan’s Batman is shrouded in shadow and natural film grain that injects a “realism” to the film.

However…

Nolan has not been one to use various shots to tell a story–much like Spielberg, Ridley Scott or even (gasp!) George Lucas.  His compositions are mainly composed one person or one object, offering the eye little focus look at.  His action sequences were always clumsy; his third Batman flick showed improvement, especially his first encounter with Bane, but they hardly rank among the best.

There’s also the fault in Nolan, who aims for IMAX, the largest format out there to size up the screen with loads and loads of information.  Yet, whenever his characters engage in conversation or action, he always shoots in medium and close-up.  You can see Bruce’s nostril hairs and whatever blacks remain in Morgan Freeman’s scalp.

There’s a lot of this kind of shot in The Dark Knight.   The filmic quality exemplifies the blacks and shadow, but the composition becomes boring and fails to magnify key emotions and elements to the script.

This is not a bad thing, per se.  One of my heroes of film is Sergio Leone, who practically invented the super close-up.  He clearly loved faces and filled the screen with one filled with pores, scars, sweat, facial hair.  Their expressions told a story.  The geometry of their genetic makeup was as intricate as a geography map.  With Nolan, he shoots close-ups without purpose.  It’s as if to suggest everything that’s being said is the most vital thing you will ever hear.  Imagine if Nolan reserved his close-up of Michael Caine until he leaned into Bruce’s ear and muttered “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”  It would be even more haunting than what’s presented in the final product.

The Avengers is far from being the best shot film of the year.  But is at least one shot I remember.  I also remember the “expensive set pieces”.  There was the bridge of the S.H.I.E.L.D. ship.  It did not distract me with its long-shots nor more-so than, say, Bruce’s hidden layer in The Dark Knight or his underground prison in The Dark Knight Rises.  

In these examples, Wedon provides space to show the distance between the  two characters.  The closeups are spared for  when the two approach each other–enhancing the discomfort and drama.

Here we see both characters in the same frame. It offers the viewer a tad more to work with, doncha think?

Having seen one film far more times than the other, I can recall images of Batman, Bane and (spoiler) Talia during the finale: each in ridiculous closeups, never falling back to any establishing shot.  I recall many images of faces.  In The Avengers, I remember the camera circling our heroes in the “money shot”, when they have finally “assembled”.  I remember the camera drifting from one action sequence to the other, establishing some tepid, but still useful tactical geometry of the large-scale battle.  I remember when the camera turns upside down, which, as Joss Whedon explained, confused the cast and crew until they saw the final product.   It’s the kind of visual experimentation that’s obvious, but it’s unique and tells the story from a strictly visual standard.

I imagine if we saw Pfister demean his comic-book competition, the camera would slowly zoom in as he unleashed his criticism until only his face filled the frame from brow to chin.  If it was shown on an IMAX screen, the impact would so extreme that I may be swayed–or frightened.

Toys r’ U$$$! (Hollywood still loves the toys…)

Battleship failed to sink The Avengers, but studios will blame the competition rather than the quality of their actual product. 
I have not seen Battleship nor do I have any inclination to if the process involves the cost of gasoline and ticket admission (I’ll catch it on RedBox, maybe).  However, friends and critics have divulged disparate viewpoints.  Jim Carl–my friend, the Director of the Carolina Theatre in Durham and certified film aficionado attended the midnight screening and actually had a blast.  The Tomatoereader tallies at 36%, which, compared to other bombs, spells “bad”, but not “dismal”.  The film was released early in foreign territories and has already earned $200 million, ensuring the film will makes its money back. 

Considering that Battleship is the most blatantly obvious cash-ins in recent memory (at least Transformers and GI Joe had cartoons and comics as a reference point), any sign of profit will rekindle faith in the toy brand.  GI Joe is tracking to make as much money as the original, despite the negative response.  Transformers earned $1 billion worldwide in spite of the detractors.  Essentially, audiences are not tired of seeing 80s nostalgia or having their senses torn asunder by information overload–they’re just more content with the Marvel superheroes.

Battleship may not reign in 2-3 sequels like its sister projects, but the formula is a safer bet than most franchises.  Thankfully, audiences are choosing the stronger franchises (Avengers) over the lame movie tie-in.  But the inevitable truth is: Battleship will do well and gross more in one week than the entire theatrical run of Drive.  That’s inexcusable. 

All three toy tie-ins are owned by the Hasbro company.  The Battleship feature will help them sell many of the classic board games to children who have been seduced by more advanced forms of entertainment like video games and Facebook.

I took some time to review Hasbro’s complete toy lineup and history.  At this stage, it appears that their film tie-in well has dried.  However, there will be more giant robot films.  Considering Battleship took a familiar name and opted to insert an alien invasion and Liam Neeson, its not inconceivable that a Hungry, Hungry Hippoes motion picture could also be green-lit when in desperation for cash.  Of course modifications will be made such as the addition of carnivorous dinosaurs and Daniel Craig.  Oh, and it will be released no sooner than one month after Iron Man 3. 

The Avengers–Review

Finally!  The build-up to nerdgasm has reached a climax, and it was oh so good!

“The Avengers” has been teasing film audience g-spots since they sat through “Iron Man’s” ending credits and watched a one-eyed Samuel L. Jackson murmur the “Avengers Initiative”.  Some film-watchers were ecstatic, others confused.  No one will be confused anymore.

Everyone who enjoys a good time will enjoy the “Avengers”.  To my friends who have branded me a hard-ass, movie-nazi, who only cherishes artsy flicks–suck it!  “Avengers” is a unapologetic, commercial franchise-maker that just happens to deliver amazing popcorn entertainment.  I grinned throughout the film, even during moments when my head was about to explode from the overload of plot information and characters.  At one point, every comic book star–Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and the Hulk’s human counterpart–are “assembled” in a giant shouting match.  The beauty of the “Avengers” is that it’s a delight just to watch these characters simply bicker.

Joss Whedon–an unsung god to ComicCon crowds–has amazing injected more humor and wit during the “downtimes” of “The Avengers” than in most A-list dramas.  During breaks from the action, the flick spends good time reintroducing the heroes, engaging each in a meet-and-greet, retreading over their prior movie plots (Captain America is out of his time, Thor is out of his world, Hulk is out of Xanax), arguing amongst each other, and eventually placing their differences aside from the better good.

The threat itself, and the central plot, is that Loki, Thor’s brother, has returned to Earth with an alien army and intends on taking over the planet.  Whedon could have instilled a plot that was more original and complex, but the film could have become more convoluted and difficult than “Inception.”

Whedon was wise to make the film’s story simple.  The characters are allowed enough time to breath and feel alive, even as Captain America and Thor wear those silly outfits.  The story gives the characters a competent excuse to exchange fists as well as puns.  Whedon chickens out and allows each fight to end in a “draw” so no Marvel fan is offended.  (Thor should have destroyed “Iron Man” in 15 seconds.)

Honestly, even at 2 1/2 hours, the film concludes with so many open possibilities for the characters to intermingle.  I personally would have been intrigued by a conversation between Thor and Cap’ America over the oddities of their current existence.  That must wait until the sequel and Whedon must remain to insure their conversation is at all enticing.  

But the real fun is the climax in which the heroes battle Loki’s army in an epic battle across Manhattan.  The trailers did not ruin the experience.  Only a fraction of the battle is revealed by the overload of previews.  For at least one half an hour, each hero divides, partner up and implement their superpowers (or nonpowered techniques) in inventive ways.  I especially enjoyed a sequence when Hulk and Thor spontaneously capitalize on Thor’s hammer and Hulk’s strength to take down a giant flying spaceship.

The battle is huge, but never becomes chaotic or tired.  The film-makers crafted a threat so massive that even the mega-powered Thor and Hulk at a point appear to be overwhelmed.  The only sticking point is that army seems uninspired, resorting to laser weapons and giant spaceships without having any features that distinguish them from villains in other movies.  Loki, on the other hand, is fun.  He may not be as strong as Hulk or Thor, but his wit and deception amount to fun surprises for our heroes.  

The action in the film exceeded my expectations and dwarfs anything seen in prior installments.  Like the first “Iron Man” the film also incorporates the comic book creations in a realistic tone.  I’m hoping that the “Avengers 2” (200 million opening weekend insures there will be 18 more) will stay true to this formula, give the characters more room to breath, and continue to explore the possible rifts that naturally occur when you put Tony Stark and Captain America in the same room.

Of course, the real joy is seeing Disney sparing no expense to let Marvel’s elite kick off their first with a colossal bang.  No one expected “The Avengers” to be Shakespeare.  But I did not expect it to be so much fun!

The Avengers will assemble the dough, but how much?

“The Avengers” will rule the weekend.  No shit!  “The Avengers” will rule the summer.  Maybe–lots of competition brewing.  “The Avengers” will claim the best opening weekend ever.  Hmm…

If I were a betting man (I won’t, put your bills back in your wallet), I would wager “The Avengers” will eclipse the Harry Potter Part 7, Part 2 (That’s how I will know it) and earn $170 million in three days.

If it doesn’t, the film will still succeed to put it mildly. Hollywood press likes to call upsets for anything that fails to defeat old records or even meet expectations.  Considering “Iron Man 1 and 2” were the strongest of the current Marvel lineup and has grossed just a penny over $100 million in their respected opening weekends, “Avengers” annihilating that total will ensure two things:

• There will a dozen more “Avenger” tie-in movies and at least one more direct sequel
• Comic book films will be green-lit for another decade
• Tie-in films will come to fruitition.  I anticipate a “Smurfs/Transformers” team-up after Parts 3 and 6 have hit theaters
• Warner Bros. will continue their attempts to replicate Marvel’s success with their DC characters–“Batman”, “Superman”, “Wonder Woman”, “Flash” and the inevitable “reimaging” of “Green Lantern”
• There will still be no Justice League film for another decade

This weekend, go out and enjoy the “Avengers”.  I’ll be there.  But the folks at Marvel and Disney won’t need my support or any of yours, for that matter.  This thing is going to make a shit-ton.  The only question is: Will it be a $900 million or $1 Billion shit-ton?

Countdown to the Avengers: The Incredible Hulk (Review)

I purposely bypassed the original 2003 version “Hulk” not because I share the universe’s animosity towards Ang Lee’s ambitious, but underwhelming 2003 film, but because Marvel Studios would prefer it that way! 
Let me divulge a little background.  Following the hugely successful “SpiderMan” (2002), Universal set its sights on the famous comic book reiteration of the Jekyll/Hyde formula.  “The Hulk” grossed a pleasing opening weekend, but tumbled famously hard in the weeks that followed due to poor word-of-mouth.  Plans for a sequel were squandered and the green giant sat dormant for five years.  Marvel decided to “re-imagine” the character as part of their diabolically plan to control Hollywood.

The entire character roster was recast.  Bruce Banner, who was initially portrayed by Eric Bana was replaced by Edward Norton; Jennifer Connolly, his initial love interest was taken over by Liv Tyler, and Sam Elliot, the army general obsessed with destroying the Hulk was now being played by William Hurt. 

Perhaps the largest complaint of the Ang Lee version was its long, boring spats and artistic liberties.  To remedy this, Marvel selected Louis Leterrier, famous for his adrenaline-loving “Transporter” films, was hired for his obvious ability to rev up the action lacking in the original.

Rather than re-explain Hulk’s origins, the filmmakers settled for a quick back story opening credit sequence that truly establishes the new “Hulk” as a new film and not a sequel. The film opens with Bruce Banner (Norton) hiding in South America.  While making ends meet as a factory worker, Bruce uses every spare second to research a cure to his Hulkiness and while studying meditation techniques to keep his anger in check.  Naturally, the military eventually finds him and begins to pursue, leading Banner back to America to reunite with love-interest and fellow scientist, Betty Ross (Tyler).

The film starts off nicely, focusing on Banner’s obsession to keep his emotions under control to prevent transforming into the unpredictable and unstoppable beast of destruction.  Norton is decent throughout the film, but he’s no where near as compelling as Downey was as Tony Stark.  This is Understandable considering the nature of each character’s personalities and situation.  Stark is a billionaire, egomaniac.  Banner is just a nerd on the run.  But the narrative disallows Norton–a great actor–to become animated, which seems like a waste.

When Banner returns to the US and reunites with Betty, the chemistry is lacking and the connections are forced.  Ironically, “The Incredible Hulk” remains fixated on correcting the wrongs of the 2003 version, but the only means of identifying a back story for the two leads would require the audience to reflect on the original film with Bana and Connelly.

Unfortunately, Betty and Bruce spend most of the movie running and hiding from the military.  Their dialog is mostly reserved for their next plan of action and they are disallowed to engage in any real moments of conversation and connection.  There are sparkles of romantic intrigue.  During a night when they are alone, sexual tension heats up, but Bruce eventually refuses to avoid risk of transforming.  The film unfortunately doesn’t go much deeper and explore this lack of intimacy.  Another rare moment occurs when Betty and Bruce head to New York to meet the one scientist who may have a cure.  They take a cab–a mistake for someone who doesn’t want to become excited.  The speedy ride ends with an irate Betty berating the cab driver as he peels away.  Bruce, still calm, approaches Betty with some techniques to help her with her anger.  These funny and touching human moments are lacking when compared to “Iron Man”.  Edward Norton was deeply involved in the production of “Hulk” and even contributed to the script, but you wouldn’t be able tell by his performance or the dialog.  The objective of the “Incredible Hulk” is to move at a brisk pace and keep the action sequences coming. 

Another issue with the “Hulk” is…well…the Hulk.  In contrast to the other characters of the Avengers stable, the Hulk is a single-minded, computer-generated behemoth with no real purpose but to smash things.  The special effects of “Hulk” are an improvement over the prior installment, but the character, himself, is just not very interesting.  Most of his scenes require him to scream, grimace, run, and smash.  There is one segment in which the Hulk is alone with Betty, but the sequence is just as unemotional as the earlier film.  The Hulk and Betty just don’t work as a couple.

“The Incredible Hulk” has a main antagonist, Emil Blonsky, a member of the Hurt’s elite force sent to destroy Hulk.  When the first plan fails, Blonsky is recruited to taste a portion of the same substance that transferred Banner in the first place.  Blonsky begins to mold into a superhuman, but is still no match for the Hulk and continues to take more of the drug.  He becomes addicted eventually defies his command and consumes a lot more until he becomes an even stronger version of the Hulk creature: Abomination.

After the military fails to slow Abomination down, they reluctantly permit Banner to transform into the Hulk in order to stop him.  The two beasts combat in a fun, but cartoony rampage throughout Harlem.  Close-ups reveal the imperfections in the animation and some of the CGI just looks just plain silly.

The intensity of the action is also abated by the lack of ground rules.  I honestly couldn’t understand the limits to the creatures power and vulnerability.  Flames and grenades do not scathe their flesh, but miniguns cause both creatures to recoil.

Regardless of the limits of CGI and unestablished logic, “The Incredible Hulk” remains B-movie fun.  Norton, although no where near as compelling as Downey, still manages with a competent performance.  The action sequences are amusing, but the substance is lacking.  Inevitably, “The Incredible Hulk” pales in comparison the “Iron Man” in almost every way.  Although the film managed to space itself from the 2003 Ang Lee failure, the second installment did not eclipse the prior installment’s box office and plans for another Hulk were never mentioned.

Thankfully, Tony Stark makes a cameo during the film’s conclusion to drop a hint that Hulk’s next tale would be reserved for the Avengers.  It is a good move.  Hulk may not make a great leading man, but he will be sure fun to watch when he’s smashing things alongside Iron Man.