The Avengers Review

The Avengers

Directed by Joss Whedon

Released in 2012

There is no reason to review The Avengers. If you love it, go tweet “#Avengers is awesome / See it!” and be done with it. If you hate it, your words will fall on ears deafened by the cha-chings of $207 million in opening weekend box office receipts, or maybe a Furious Samuel L. Jackson. And if you neither love it nor hate it, like me, then — who cares?

The flaw and triumph of The Avengers is that it succeeds so well in capturing its source material and nothing more. That source material is a line of Marvel comics that started in the 1960s and throws some of Marvel’s most popular characters together to save the world against “foes no single superhero can withstand.” It is a fun, pulpy series, with a lot of macho banter between, and during, action scenes in place of true character development seen in the individual heroes’ stories.

Those superheroes are Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow and Nick Fury. Say goodbye to the reality of the Iraq War that set the scene for Iron Man, and hello to Norse mythology besides a gamma-radiated beast and former Nazi hunter. Their foe is Thor’s adopted brother, Loki, who seeks to enslave the world with some magical cube that unlocks a portal to another universe. The stakes are so high that it is hard to care. It is more Loki’s ability to sustain perfect posture and speaketh in faux-Middle English while wearing egregious golden horns that convinces me that, yes, this is a job for more than one.

This film is clearly not The Dark Knight and does not pretend to be. I see that as a relief. IMAX agrees, for it holds a strict summer quota on “brooding, depressing, not-so-super hero tragedies.” But The Avengers is not even a hearty, standalone comic adaptation in the vein of Spider-Man 2. Director, co-writer and nerd-throb Joss Whedon basically crafts a superior version of Michael Bay’s Transformers films: irresistible to the eyes, with wit and fan service to spare, yet still without a thread of substance or speck of beauty underneath it all.

Despite the love Whedon is given by Internet culture, his talent displays itself sporadically in the film. With a movie set to top a billion dollars and a budget of over $220 million, it’s disappointing that many of the dialogue scenes possess a cheap aesthetic. To juggle all the characters, the film jumps from one character to another, often using dolly or crane shots to quickly establish a sense of place and familiarity with someone you might not have seen for three minutes (an eternity in a blockbuster). Filmed digitally, a lot of the dialogue looks like that of a TV show — no surprise considering Whedon’s Buffy and Firefly history. But there is a disposable, uninspired feeling to these shots and, further, to whole scenes. Our few moments with, say, Hawkeye are recorded in the same stock fashion as just another ensemble cable drama.

Given its rather simple expectations, however, The Avengers might just benefit from these artistic shortcomings. It is one of the most faithful comic book film adaptations in recent memory, with all the pretty visual motifs, ridiculous scenarios and emotional shallowness you can find in its inspiration. The S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier — an aircraft carrier capable of stratospheric flight — looks crazier in motion than it could possibly appear on hand-drawn panels. Iron Man flying through the city, back facing the ground, is an iconic image brought to life, as is the 360-degree rotating shot of The Avengers, cornered by foes and New York City skyscrapers, prepping for battle. These scenes are just about copied from Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s original work, but it’s the kind of flattering plagiarism everyone can get behind.

The special effects are obviously remarkable, dazzling, super-duper. I am continually impressed by the different ways Iron Man enters and exits his suit; when he lands on the open-air pad of his own skyscraper, Tony Stark quickly emerges as spinning discs and robotic arms disassemble the intricate exoskeleton. Stark is, of course, blasé to the whole display. In the final action sequence, the camera swoops down streets and up buildings in an uninterrupted, natural flow that follows each hero kicking ass and farming testosterone. Don’t ask who their enemies are (Wikipedia says they are Loki’s army of “Chitauri,” and I am not sure the film said even that) and ignore that they look like a poor mesh of Gears of War’s Locust army and Transformers 3’s flying monsters. Just enjoy the show.

Detailing the story would bore me more than you: Things happen, things are explained, things are never explained. You could toil over the numerous plot holes, or you could just read the comic book — the answers are there, I hope. I did notice some light contemporary political commentary, with Nick Fury as the neoconservative hawk pushing for action, Bruce Banner (The Hulk) as the frustrated diplomat and Captain America as the old-fashioned ideologue of World War II-era America. These tensions manifest in one key scene of verbal conflict and are not addressed afterward, but the film deserves an ‘A’ for its effort, right?

Speaking of The Hulk, Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde pacifistic beast steals the show. Ruffalo is a naturally reserved and faintly awkward presence on screen — Bruce Banner incarnate. Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark continues to rob all the witty one-liners (before he flies off with Hawkeye in his arms, Stark deadpans, “Clench up, Legolas”), but The Hulk has a few key moments of winning physical comedy, one joke of which set my theater off in an uproar of laughter that didn’t cease until halfway through the next scene.

So, The Avengers is funny as well as entertaining, attractive and exciting. What’s not to love? Truthfully, most of the film’s problems arise from the concept more than the execution. You can say, “Well, it was the best ensemble superhero movie ever!” And I would agree, with such stiff competition and all.

But look: This movie is going to make a billion dollars. Far more than that, actually. With only three days in the States and thirteen worldwide, it has already accrued a staggering $650 million. This is not the last Avengers movie, nor the last Marvel sequel or spin-off. The Avengers sets a decent precedent, one of cheery mirth and harmless arousal. It is not the plethora of explosions and jokes that rubs me wrong. Rather, it is the notion — nay, insult — that we cannot handle anything more.

Final Verdict:

3 Stars Out of 5

This article was originally written for The Cornell Daily Sun and can be viewed at its original location via this link.

Iron Man 2 Review

Iron Man 2:
Directed by Jon Favreau
Released in 2010

"Style over substance." This complaint is often lodged at films that sacrifice an intelligent narrative structure, or even a basic plot, in favor of flashy, eye-catching effects. It is not a compliment for a movie to be described as such, but it is the approach to use when trying to reel in huge audiences. After all, look at Transformers 2:  millions of dollars spent on visual overload while pennies reserved for a senseless story. Now this phrase does not apply to Iron Man 2 but a variation of it: Style over too much substance. That definitely sounds preferable to the former, and it is. The cluttered, unfortunately underdeveloped character plot lines are ultimately just distractions from the energy the fantastic actors and director present. This approach works perfectly fine, and Iron Man 2 ends up a more entertaining, absorbing package than the first.


This sequel picks up exactly where the last left off, when Tony Stark, played with the charisma and attitude that only Robert Downey Jr. can muster, declares to the world that he is, in fact, Iron Man. He becomes a national icon, beloved by the American public and, lacking any modesty whatsoever, believes that this attention is deserved. After all, as he so tersely states, he successfully privatized world peace. In no surprise whatsoever, Stark faces a few new adversaries, both at home and abroad. The United States government is seeking to get Stark's weapons in, supposedly, " the people's hands," to which Tony is vehemently opposed not only because it violates his rights but because no other country is even close to equaling Stark Industries. Cue Whiplash. This Russian brute, whose real name is Ivan Vanko, seeks to destroy the Iron Man due to possibly shameful incidents that haunt the Stark family tree. A failing arms tycoon, Justin Hammer, in an enjoyable, slimeball performance by Sam Rockwell, enlists the help of Vanko to execute the common goal they both share. 

On top of this, Tony deals with the stress of physical atrophy from the machine that is, ironically, keeping him alive, as well as the detachment he is facing from his steadfast support and love, Pepper Potts, played with domineering confidence by Gwyneth Paltrow.  Meanwhile, Lt. Col. James Rhodes cannot tolerate his best friend's self-destructive attitude and decides to make his own decked-out Iron Man after a scuffle.  Yet even stacked atop this is the foreboding emergence of S.H.I.E.L.D., a superhero group led by Nick Fury, the badass motha himself, Samuel L. Jackson. Scarlett Johansson, Stark's new assistant, turns out to be a member of this group under the moniker Black Widow. Obviously, due to the size of this synopsis and the incoherency of it all, the story could have used improvement in editing and less character overload.


The sole flaw of this movie is not necessarily a discordant plot, because it does make sense if you pay attention, but a lack of character development besides the main stars. Iron Man obviously takes centerstage, and there is no lack of the typical superhero sequel middle section in which the protagonist has to overcome emotional and psychological problems, a la Spiderman 2 or The Dark Knight. Whiplash is also prominent throughout, his story being one of pain and vengeance. We see the pain in his character, plus a humorous faux-Russian accent as well. However, other characters like Lt. Rhodes are not as developed as they could have been. Nick Fury appears in merely two scenes, and by now it seems as if the filmmakers are just teasing us to his future involvement in an Avengers movie. Natalie Rushman, Scarlet Johansson in top, sexy form, does not have much prominence to the plot and serves more as eye-candy than anything else. Fine by me, but I will admit it is wasted potential.

The botched character progression is disappointing- because that is something the first did very well- but it is far from fatal. In fact, the movie is so fun overall that these problems are easily overlooked. The reason why Iron Man 2 succeeds so well is because it is full of fantastic, talented actors who are all over-qualified for their roles. Take Mickey Rourke, aka Whiplash, for example. Rourke, who gave one of the finest acting performances in years with The Wrestler, goes beyond what is required, or even expected, for this performance as Ivan Vanko. His Eastern bloc drawl is definitely cheesy, especially as he croons for his bird one too many times, but he brings an emotional depth to the character that is not necessary in a big budget action film like this one. His character seeks to destroy Tony Stark as a personal vendetta, and Rourke conveys this bloodthirsty pain with an energy that only a gifted actor can convey. Pair him aside the star of the film himself, Robert Downey Jr., and you have two actors that are surprisingly alike. Both were hot commodities in Hollywood years ago, but then had a self-destructive period where they disappeared into obscurity. Only in the last four years have these excellent actors, as Tony Stark says of himself in the beginning of this movie, risen from the ashes in "the greatest phoenix metaphor the world has ever seen." The first Iron Man takes the credit for Downey's true return, but now that the sequel contains both him and the other comeback hero of recent Hollywood history, we can enjoy the talents of yesteryear at their top form, today.

Downey Jr. carries the film on his shoulders with ease and grace.  His conservative, playboy character stands in sharp contrast to a more noble hero like Bruce Wayne, but Stark is engaging because he loves himself as much as everyone else does. The opening scene, in which Stark is questioned by a United States Senate committee, shows how Tony believes he is above all others. Senator Stern - a hilarious, sordid and scarily plastic Garry Shandling - demands that the Iron Man suit be transferred to government hands, but Stark associates himself with the observing audience and turns the tables on the interrogators. Downey is a unique, gifted actor who can play with his food before eating it, and all the while with a sly smile. The script, written by Mulholland Drive star and Tropic Thunder co-writer Justin Theroux, gives him some winning lines, but the spot-on delivery is all attributed to Downey. When Tony Stark goes through his internal conflict in the middle of the movie, Downey bares a melancholic spirit, like one who is flying too close to the sun. This performance may not be as shocking or classic as his controversial turn as Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder, but it may as well contain some of his finest acting yet. There's an energy pulsing through the screen when Robert Downey Jr. is on it; the film plays it wise and refrains from taking him off it.

The rest of the cast is stellar, by no means a necessity for a movie of this type. Thankfully, this is a different type of beast. Gwyneth Paltrow is a commanding, occasionally cold, yet commanding figure who, if absent, would leave Tony Stark helpless. Pepper Potts is no longer the naive, bewildered assistant that she was in the first:  she actually bosses Tony around this time. By her side is Happy Hogan, the lovable yet bumbling bodyguard, played by Jon Favreau, also the director.  Watching him struggle to subdue a goon while Black Widow easily clears a room of thugs is an interesting juxtaposition, to say the least. Black Widow, aka Natalie Rushman, aka Natasha Romanoff, is underutilized in her role but nonetheless provides to be a...pleasant sight on the screen. As Stark observes, she is unreadable in her motives, making her an intriguing character. "Rhodey," previously Terrence Howard but now played by a superior Don Cheadle, is given an imposing physical presence and is less of a pushover than the first. In fact, his strict, militaristic demeanor proves to be a main conflict in the movie. However, he still knows how to have fun, and Cheadle, who proved his acting prowess in Hotel Rwanda, is a winning actor. There is no dispute to the mastery of Samuel L. Jackson, who is painfully absent from most of the movie but a scene-stealer when on the screen. John Slattery, the boss from Mad Men, is an insightful father for Tony, revealed in old footage, and Clark Gregg plays a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who tries to control Stark but learns that trapping a lightning bolt is not a facile matter. The last lead actor is Sam Rockwell, who was so robbed of an Oscar nomination in last year's Moon, and will play a character well even when he is an annoying prick. Justin Hammer, his arms manufacturer persona, is a pathetic individual in all respects but given a humorous, pitiful edge by Rockwell. Summer blockbusters often have a large list of high-profile names on their poster, but rarely do all the actors fulfill their potential and deliver winning performances such as this film.

Typically, the star of the show for many will be the action. The acting is where this focus should be directed but the fight scenes are filmed with confidence and filled with visual wonders. Favreau, who also directed the first, is an excellent director who can balance the demands of action with the quality necessity of character development, even if the screenplay does not deliver on all fronts. The explosions look expensive, but do not carry a moronic aura when surrounded by an absorbing plot and cast of winning players. Michael Bay should take a hint here. This film actually outdoes Bay's vapid Transformers movies with the typical "flashy assembly of armor" scene. In the middle of a French speedway, Tony Stark uses the "Iron Man suitcase" (which curiously is light enough for Gwyneth Paltrow to carry without struggle) to put his metallic exoskeleton on. There is a ridiculous sense of detail and liberal use of clanking sounds, as well as the ludicrousness of the situation, that makes this the key scene for the visual effects crew behind the film. Favreau and the team behind him craft a dynamic, truly badass spectacle of what is really pieces of metal scraping against each other. Again, Michael Bay, take note.

Iron Man 2 may not bring that fresh, vivid guise that critics praised for the original, but it delivers with excellent acting and tons of more fun. What more is there to ask for a huge blockbuster like this? This may not be an equal to The Dark Knight as far as superhero sequels go but it ups the ante in every department, usually all to the film's benefit. It is unfortunate that Theroux's screenplay does not contain enough room for all the characters to properly flesh out, but Favreau and the actors take what they have and make something genuinely magnetic.

Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5

Sherlock Holmes Review

Sherlock Holmes

Directed by Guy Ritchie

Released in 2009

A modern reboot of a series of novels made in the late 19th century does not sound like a recipe for success. With Sherlock Holmes, the result is mixed but, for the most part, it succeeds. A likable cast and some neat action give this film momentum, even when it slows down to some problems with acting, editing and screenplay.

Everyone knows the general premise of Sherlock Holmes, though few know much else. Seriously, who between the age of 14 and 25 knows more than there is a guy named Sherlock and Watson? I sure did not and, fortunately, this film is meant for this crowd, introducing all the main characters and their brief histories. The plot centers around a mysterious figure named Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, who murders five women in bizarre rituals. He is apprehended by Holmes and Watson, performed with much talent by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, respectively, within the first 15 minutes. However, his disappearance proves to be the conflict and the duo uses all of their "not inconsiderable knowledge" to find out who this man really is. Along the way, Holmes encounters an old flame, Irene Adler, given a seductive allure by Rachel McAdams. She is the one criminal who outsmarted Holmes or, perhaps, merely tempted him to the point of disorientation. Nonetheless, her shifting alliances frustrate the duo but end up being useful. The story is okay, nothing too special, but the action is where the film really gets its edge.

Guy Ritchie, the director, is known for intriguing title credits and overly bombastic action scenes rife with explosions.  Thankfully, Sherlock Holmes is subdued, if ever so slightly. There is an emphasis on Holmes' attentive approach to problem-solving, shown by how fast he speaks and how he is always, unsurprisingly, right. Perhaps the best part of this movie is its combat scenes which take both Holmes' intellect and strength and mash them together. In super slow-motion, Holmes narrates and explains each step in a fight he will take and its result (3 broken ribs, for example). Then, it is played in real time, with plenty of short cuts, and a broken man is on the floor while the crowd watches, mouths agape. It is a very neat feature and is met with a lot of exaggerated facial expressions, crushing audio and ripples on skin once the fist hits it. It only happens twice and I would have welcomed it again. Other action scenes are well choreographed, with the stereotypical "heavy, foreign beast of a man" as a recurring adversary. All of this takes place in an unflattering, gritty version of Victorian England that resembles its influence but lacks any real connection to the time period. Perhaps this was intentional (Sherlock Holmes is not aiming to be a period piece), but it feels like all of the characters could be in modern times if they only dressed differently and drove cars. It is not a real annoyance as much of a peculiar observation. That withstanding, the action is where this film shines and I would have actually welcomed more of the overblown action that Ritchie is known for here.

The acting is surprisingly strong for the leading roles but weak where there's Strong. Bad puns aside, Mark Strong is a fine actor on his own accord but noticeably bad here. He moves his face in strange ways and cloaks himself under a black hood to look menacing. He his hanging from a bridge at one point and I thought back to Christopher Walken in A View To A Kill. That can be seen as a compliment for both of these roles as they are so cheesy that they are good in a strange way. Still, Robert Downey Jr. is excellent, sporting an English accent that can sit comfortably next to Jude Law. Downey has gone from a druggie mess to reformed actor in the last few years, starting with Iron Man, and this new film is another franchise to add to his prestigious belt. It is great hearing about his success and his talent really deserves it. McAdams is also fine in her role; not spectacular but decent, as is Kelly Reilly who plays Watson's fiance. Jude Law himself brings his suave demeanor to Holmes' better half. He is not a pushover, however, as he resorts to brute force usually before Holmes does. All in all, the cast is mixed but the two leads certainly make for a strong ensemble.

There is an occult theme at the center of the storyline and that is where I really have my problems with the movie. You see it in The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but the whole "secret society with mysterious powers" cliche has been done so many times that it is tiring to see it be done here. I will not spoil how the plot turns out but, Holmes' reasoning withstanding, this could have been done without. In addition, the pacing of the film is fine as it moves along but 10 minutes could have been shaved off from the 2 hour, 8 minute runtime to make a tighter, more cohesive package. Writing wobbles from time to time as well. There is a good amount of humor present here but it counters the weak dialogue for the villains and predictable female encounters. The script does a very good job at wrapping up most of the loose ends, however, and Sherlock Holmes really lives up to his namesake by piecing everything together in the end.  The other issues are not huge but they certainly deserve to be brought up.

Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought. There is action that is both adrenaline-pumping and genuinely funny, and the stellar leading males have great chemistry with one another, also proving hilarious. I could harp on some of the flaws but I still heartily recommend this movie. It is a fun, fresh take on the famous detective and now I know that "Elementary, my dear Watson" is not the only thing Sherlock Holmes ever said.

Final Verdict:

3 Stars Out of 5