Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2015

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" - 2015
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 21 min.

Trailer #3

by Clayton Hollifield

Well, I think my streak of seeing Marvel movies is just about over.  No, not because of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," it was just fine.  Instead, I saw trailers for both "Ant-Man" and the "Fantastic Four" reboot, and I'm pretty sure I'll be giving one of those a big ol' pass.  FF, in particular, looks brutal.  But we're not here to talk about those films, we're here to talk about the official sequel to one of the biggest-grossing, most-beloved action films in recent years.  And it was pretty good.  I didn't like it as much as the first, or even as much as the first "Iron Man" and "Thor" films, but I did like it.  I think, once some time has passed, and another Avengers film comes along, that this will come off better, and as part of a longer story being told.  Right now, it's much like the second "Star Wars" film, in that it's the "bummer" film, and until another movie in the series comes out, it's the final word on the story.

The Avengers start off avenging, crashing Baron Strucker's (Thomas Kretchmann) party and liberating Loki's wand-thingy from the grips of evil-doers.  Tony Stark (Ghostface Killah Robert Downey, Jr.) borrows the wand for a few days for some research, which means trying to understand how Asgardian technology works.  Ultimately, after bonding over being mad scientists, Stark draws in Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to help with the research, as there's a bit of a time crunch before the artifact is to be returned to Asgard.  The goal: artificial intelligence, in the form of something that will help prevent something like what happened in the first Avengers movie from happening.  The actual result: a crazy robot named Ultron (voiced by James Spader) that wants to, well, you know exactly what a crazy-ass robot accidentally created by Iron Man and the Hulk is going to want to do.

So, I wasn't kidding when I said this was the "bummer" film in the series.  Part of that is that the events in the first Avengers film have had lasting effects (Iron Man, in particular, has had difficulty in processing all of it), but part of it that one of the opponents they have to deal with, the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), has the power of killing positive vibes and forcing people to wade through their own personal nightmares.  This leads to one of the best action sequences, the thing that should have been built around in it's own film, putting fright and fury into the Hulk, which results in even more of the carnage that Dr. Banner has been trying to avoid and atone for.  The message of the film is very much that people are often their own worst enemies (and that everything is better when you're part of a team, if you can manage to keep that team on the same page), and messages have to be felt and understood, not just explained to people.  That means that everyone on the team will have to suffer in their own heads (which also leaves open the door for some stellar character development, where you kind of start to understand what it is exactly that motivates each character).  These scenes aren't easy viewing, but they are good filmmaking.

Big action films need a couple of things.  Big action pieces (check.)  Big stakes (check).  Bringing back as much of the cast as humanly possible (check - the only people that were really missing was Pepper Potts and Natalie Portman's character, and they were both discussed within the plot, so I don't think we're to assume that Ms. Portman and Ms. Paltrow have been written out of the series).  Once you get past that stuff, it helps if you can sympathize with the characters, even if they're on opposite sides (check).  And maybe if there wasn't another Avengers film, I would have liked this one better.  The big issue was that the first Avengers film felt epic (and not in a internetty way, in a Homeric way).  The action sequence at the end of that one was exhilarating and exhausting in a completely satisfying way, and hit upon something that I rarely see in films (how fighting for something, even something worthwhile, can wear you down to your very soul, and leave marks that can't be seen).  Even though the stakes in "Age of Ultron" were large, it never felt epic in the same way.  It was a giant battle, but felt on an individual scale.  And the result never really felt like it was in doubt.

From where I'm sitting, "Avengers: Age of Ultron" felt more like another one of Marvel's admittedly pretty damned good string of solo character films that like another event film, like the first "Avengers."  That means it was still good, all the things that you would have enjoyed about the other combination of characters are still there (like the character interactions and fast-paced dialogue), and it didn't break the string of enjoyable Avengers-related films.  But things might look different five years from now, if there's a third Avengers film and more story with these characters.  I leave open the possibility that "Ultron" will feel more like an important, but down chapter in the longer story when the whole deal is wrapped up.  I do not leave open the possibility that the new "Fantastic Four" film is going to be any good whatsoever, though.  That's straight doo-doo.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

Iron Man 3 - 2013

"Iron Man 3" - 2013
Dir. by Shane Black - 2 hrs. 10 min.

Official UK Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There is a beauty to seeing a sequel to an action movie or a super-hero movie: you don't have to waste time establishing characters.  By a third installment in a franchise, either people are on-board, or they've seen enough from the trailers for the previous films to have a ballpark idea of what the characters are like (or you can figure it out in context, of course, if you're willing to miss a couple of continuity-related jokes here and there).  So, instead of screwing around for the first third of a film trying desperately to blend character development with things going ka-boom without sacrificing either too badly.  "Iron Man 3" does this beautifully, jumping straight into the action.  It's also probably the difference between this film being a shade over two hours and it pushing two forty-five.

In Greek mythology, a nemesis is a vengeful spirit that exists to payback hubris.  It's an enemy that one creates from their own actions, and in the months following what happened in New York (which you can see for yourself in a little art-house documentary film called "The Avengers"), Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) begins to reap what he's sown roughly fifteen years in the past.  Stark was badly shaken by New York, and has thrown himself deeply into his work refining the Iron Man costume in order to withdraw from the world.  A series of unusual terrorist bombings, claimed by a "teacher" called The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) riles Stark, who issues a personal challenge for The Mandarin to show up at his doorstep.  That goes about as well as you think it would.

Even though this third installment is helmed by a new director (Shane Black, taking over for Jon Favreau), the tone and visual approach isn't radically changed.  Like the first two films, there's a lot of spectacular action, things move along at a very brisk pace, and Downey Jr. motormouths his way through the entire thing.  One of the main differences is that the Iron Man armor almost takes on a second persona separate from Stark; he's in-costume for what feels like a lot less time this time around.  It's not a problem like in other super-hero movies (the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man series, where he's got a secret identity but keeps taking his mask off anyways), Stark is a public figure and has claimed Iron Man as his own.  Instead, it adds a layer to Stark's withdrawal from everything and everyone around him.  Since the armor doesn't provide anonymity (there's a scene where he leaves it parked outside of a restaurant like you'd park a car), there's much less appeal to Stark to being in it.  He'd rather tinker in his lab than engage the world around him.

The mystery of the film (no spoilers, because the plot twists are at least half of the fun here) is one that breaks down over several stages, and culminates in a huge, destructive fight scene that can only take place on the wharf, where there's all kinds of cool, inanimate things that can be wrecked without having to worry about loss of human life (at least on the scale of what happened in "The Avengers").  The villains are people who have been able to regenerate limbs, but it leaves them with the ability to hurl fire and heat up their bodies to explosive levels.  It's a side-effect of the Exogenesis process, which still has a few kinks that need to be worked out before it's ready and available at your local health food store.  But the people who have undergone the process are equal to Iron Man when it comes to combat, which makes for some fun fights.

In terms of the large action pieces, they're completely up to snuff.  The two largest are probably a sequence involving Iron Man saving people who are in free-fall, and the large end fight at the wharf.  I found myself unexpectedly on the edge of my seat for the former, and while the latter has a sense of inevitability (c'mon, it's the end boss battle.  You kinda know how that's got to end), it's a sustained piece of really good action.  The initial attack on Stark's home is pretty good, as well.  And all through it, there are little details to humanize Stark: it's clear his current armor is still in beta testing.  So on the action front, "Iron Man 3" delivers the goods.

Probably the thing that makes "Iron Man 3" most interesting is Stark's character arc; it becomes clear over the course of the movie that Tony Stark is the super-hero, not Iron Man.  Stark isn't amazing because he's got a cool suit of armor that allows him to do super-human things, the armor is an expression of Stark's brilliance.  The events in previous films has shaken his belief in himself, but he's able to understand here that he's the main attraction, that Stark's got the goods even if he's completely unarmed and you let him lose in a Home Depot with a charge card.  His resourcefulness comes back to the forefront like it did in the first "Iron Man" film, and it's a lot of fun to watch the character rediscover exactly what it is that makes him different from other people.

There's almost no way I could imagine someone who enjoyed any of the previous Iron Man appearances not really enjoying "Iron Man 3."  It works even if you haven't seen those movies, the mystery to the story is a very windy road that unfolds in a fun manner, and the villains are formidable.  So far, Marvel's done a great job with every single one of the Avengers string of films, and "Iron Man 3" continues that streak.  Also worth noting, Gwyneth Paltrow totally puts in her time at the gym.

4 / 5 - Theatre 3D

Tropic Thunder - 2008

"Tropic Thunder" - 2008
Dir. by Ben Stiller - 2 hours

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Every few years, Ben Stiller comes out with a film that justifies wading through his more mainstream fare.  Usually, it's one that he's directed himself (which is a pretty short of films, considering he's been acting in films for over twenty years), and the idea behind it is batshit insane.  "Tropic Thunder" is one of the Ben Stiller movies that makes dealing with "The Heartbreak Kid" or "Along Came Polly" almost worth it.

"Tropic Thunder" is sort of a movie about making a movie; Tugg Speedman (Stiller) is one of the stars of a film adaptation of a book of the same name, about one man's experiences during the Vietnam War.  Speedman is a fading action star, and the rest of the cast is rounded out by Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.), a critical darling who is also an unspeakably committed method actor, Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson), a crossover rap star who constantly hawks his own merchandise, Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), a strung-out comedian who makes movies in the vein of "Big Momma's House," and Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel), an unknown actor.  This combination of egos and star-power are a headache for director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan), who is completely unable to wrangle the actors.  He is given the genius idea of shooting guerrilla style and dropping the actors into the jungles of Vietnam, which predictably goes awry.

Now, the idea behind the film is pretty solid, but the execution is damned near flawless.  Not only does the humor come from the characters, but the characters are as insane as you'd think a batch of famous actors would be, and then some.  But a lot of that rests on the stars' shoulders.  I can't immediately think of another film in many years where one of the leads spends the entire film essentially in blackface (that would be Downey, Jr.), another is playing a comedian strung out on heroin (Black), and the third is as dumb as the characters he plays (Stiller), and then not only get away with it, but end up being praised for it, but here we are.

One of the things that really helps is that the actors don't really ever wink to the camera.  They're all fully immersed in being dumb and being really aggressive about that (which is a proven comedy formula), and that helps when you end up having to root for these guys even though they'd all seem really awful people on the surface.  But you see that these people are behaving in a manner consistent with their personalities, and are not transparently playing that for laughs.  You can see this in the scene where Tugg plays with a severed head, trying to convince his castmates that the game is on; it's not a case of Ben Stiller playing with a head because he wants the shock value, it's Tugg playing a character trying to convince his castmates that the head is a prop because he's too dumb to realize that he's holding a dripping, leaking head in his hands.  So when Tugg eventually gets in trouble (because of course he's going to), you can't really fault him for doing dumb things.  He's a dumb man, he can't help that.  But he believes in what he's doing, and that goes a long way.

It's also very difficult to make a movie like this without actually being able to make a movie that looks like this.  Parodies can be fantastic because of their seeming amateurishness, but making a movie that looks like a  full-on action movie just to be able to make fun of some of the things in it (and this is not a parody of a war film, it's the batch of actors that the actors are playing that are the source of and the butt of pretty much every joke present) is much more subversive.  There's a wide range of kinds of movies shown in "Tropic Thunder," and the beginning sequence of faux-trailers that introduce the characters (and this is both succinct and a brilliant way to introduce a series of characters) either has to work like it's real or look completely like trash. And they look legit.  The film looks legit.  You've got those swooping helicopter shots that show the denseness of the jungle and then a village or something as transition shots (not just once, either), and those aren't even for humorous purposes!  It's just that if you make a war movie in the jungle, that shot's going to be in there.

"Tropic Thunder" is so funny it makes me a little angry that there isn't more with these characters.  I'd seriously watch any of the movies in the fake trailers, or anything with Tugg Speedman in it at all.  I'll probably have to settle for watching "Zoolander" again, and then I'll get mad that "Zoolander 2" isn't out yet.  It's times like that I weaken and start to consider re-watching "Meet the Fockers" or "Starsky & Hutch," and when I do, I'll start to get disappointed that they aren't more "Zoolander" or more "Tropic Thunder."  That's how Ben Stiller will get you.  Every five or six years, he'll do a genius comedy that you just can't dislodge from your head.  And then, for the next five or six years, you'll go see what he's been doing, hoping and failing to recapture that magic.  And then, right when Ben Stiller feels you start to slip, boom.  "Zoolander 2."

Hooked again.

4 / 5 - Blu-Ray

The Avengers - 2012

"The Avengers" - 2012
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 23 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Long-term planning is both difficult, and impressive when it actually comes off.  If you want to count Ang Lee's "Hulk," which came out in 2003, Marvel Comics has been working towards this film for nearly a decade.  That's an incredible amount of patience and planning, but again, when it works, you've got a real gem on your hands.

On the off chance that you're not familiar with The Avengers, it's based on a comic book that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby co-created in the early 1960's (although Captain America was created around twenty years before that by Kirby and Joe Simon).  At least in this movie, the team of super-heroes (TM Marvel Comics and DC Comics, and no, I'm not kidding about that) is comprised of Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), under the leadership of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and S.H.I.E.L.D., which is a super-secret spy organization.  We've met most of these characters in the series of movies leading up to "The Avengers," but even if we hadn't, they're all introduced well here.

The action kicks off when Loki (Thor's adopted, insanely-jealous brother, played by Tom Hiddleston) drops in on Earth, and steals a powerful device called the Tesseract.  Loki intends to trade the device to the leader of an alien army, who will then help enslave Earth.  This is largely a ploy to get back at Thor, as he's taken a liking to Earth.  Nick Fury's been planning for such a situation, and calls the Avengers in to retrieve the Tesseract.  If you know much about the characters involved, them acting like a team is not natural to anyone.  The whole thing comes down to the Avengers defending the city of New York against Loki and his alien hordes.  If that sounds like a rather slight basis for a movie, I'd say two things.  First, you're dealing with about eight characters who have roughly equal billing, and secondly, it's an action movie.  I'm not talking about the details of the action because my words don't have muscles and special effects and loud bangs.  Just trust that the action fills in the gaps nicely.

One of the things that makes "The Avengers" so much fun is the constant ego-clashing.  There are three characters present who have already had their own excellent feature-films (and Hulk, who had two uneven films), and it would stand to reason that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America all have their own well-defined personalities and quirks, and are largely unaccustomed to having to accommodate others.  They have to earn each other's respect first, and before that happens, there are constant verbal barbs between them, and one spectacular physical showdown that only proves that none of them can punch their way out of  having to deal with one another.  There's also a story between Black Widow and Hawkeye (who is entranced by Loki in their initial battle, and spends a chunk of the film fighting on Loki's side), the closest thing to a love story (albeit a very unsentimental one) here.  For fans who have seen the previous films, the characters all behave just like you'd expect them to (which is difficult when dealing with this many people), and the fireworks that ensue are a huge chunk of what's great here.

And yes, the action here is very satisfying.  There are a lot of spectacular sights, and the extended battle sequence in New York is fantastic.  In lesser films, I'm becoming numb to the city-wide destruction thing; in the trailers before "The Avengers" alone, there were two movies using the same idea.  And that doesn't even include recent films like the "Transformers" series, "Battle: Los Angeles," or even "Fast Five," where Rio takes a hellacious beating.  People who are squeamish about seeing New York get attacked on-screen clearly haven't been watching many action films; this is the standard action movie trope that's getting violently humped into the ground just like the "baddie with a super-virus" plot that was inescapable about ten to fifteen years ago.  So on it's own, that aspect is neither a positive nor a negative (but I'm warning you, filmmakers, this idea is tap-dancing on the border of played out), but it's what is done with it that matters.

The real story here is not about a battle, it's about a group of people with extraordinary abilities setting aside their egos in order to work together to achieve something that one person can't achieve on their own.  How bipartisan!  There are bumps and bruises along the way to achieving that (and the interactions between Cap and Iron Man directly address that), but this is a movie about the need for cooperation (in the way that the Batman movies are about dealing with terrorism) between diametrically opposed forces.  The message isn't heavy-handed, but when you've got a dyed-in-the-wool patriot having to cooperate with a billionaire playboy and a legit God from Asgard, and they're all literally fighting to save America, you can make of that what you will (Congress, I'm looking in your direction).

But with the years of anticipation building for fans of the Avengers, is this really the best comic book movie ever made?  No, I'd have to say it isn't.  It's easily on par with the films leading up to it, with the added bonus of finally getting to see established characters interact with one another, and it's a damned fine film.  For my money, "The Dark Knight" is as good as it gets.  But then again, "The Avengers" is an entirely different beast.  It's intended to be about rad characters doing awesome things and bickering with one another.  It satisfies on all of those levels, thank goodness.  Dropping the ball after so much build-up would have been unbearable.

NOTE: Usually, I don't like to mention any kind of creative disputes about the creation of a film, but as excellent as Marvel Comics' movies have been, none of it would have been possible without the pencil of Jack Kirby (and legions of other artists, as well).  Unfortunately, Marvel has historically had a difficult time admitting as such, and their continued difficulty is absurd, considering that the Avengers is a billion-dollar movie.  If you're so inclined, read this article and consider making a donation to the Hero Initiative, a charity that helps out the authors and illustrators who have made movies like this possible with their hard work.

4.5 / 5 - Theatre

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 2011

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - 2011
Dir. by Guy Ritchie - 2 hrs. 9 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's something to be said for a well-done, fun franchise movie.  You can do so much worse at the multiplex to go see a couple of big stars do a big budget period movie.  As long as each installment delivers enough to have you smiling on your way out of the theatre, it doesn't need to be revolutionary or ground-breaking.  Every couple of years, you get to visit a character that you like again.  That's a fair bargain.

I don't really need to get into who Sherlock Holmes is, unless you're some kind of genius, Sherlock.  The characters are essentially the same as last time around, except Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the verge of getting married.  Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn't look very positively on that development, but he's willing to stand by his friend.  Before that, Holmes interjects into a criminal plot being executed by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), at the behest of Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Irene is quickly written out of the film, and Moriarty refuses Holmes' request to leave Watson out of whatever mischief might pass between the two.  There is a stag party for Watson, shoddily organised by Holmes, where we are introduced to Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock's older brother.  Later, Holmes is forced to interject during Watson's honeymoon, as Moriarty proves that he's not interested in leaving Watson out of the equation.  From there, the larger mystery is a battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, sometimes literally, sometimes via physical confrontation, sometimes metaphorically.

I'm of two minds about Guy Ritchie's stamp on the Sherlock Holmes movies.  It's easy to see his visual flair and the trademark of his smaller budget films' story-lines: twisting heist plots with a large cast of real men who show a penchant for oneupmanship.  Even if it's coached in turn of the 20th century British language and mannerisms, Ritchie's Holmes is swaggering alpha male driven to success almost maniacally, and fueled by exotic substances to keep his motor running.  It's different than "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "RocknRolla" only on the surface.  But as much fun as those movies are, he seems very comfortable making this sort of big-time franchise film.  I wouldn't doom a director to make low-budget swear-a-thons for his entire career, so I suppose as much fun as those early films are, they'll always be available to go back and watch while Ritchie continues on this path.  Besides, it's not as if the Sherlock films are bad or anything.

I have some sympathy for people who worship the source material; a lifetime of reading comic books has put me in that category for more than my share of films.  I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, which is probably the best way to go into any given movie.  I couldn't tell you whether this was based on anything in particular, and I don't care to find out.  When someone is setting out to make any movie, the goal should be to make the best film possible.  So while I have no idea if there was a book partially set in a munitions factory, what shows up on screen is an excellent action sequence that goes from a violent direct, face-to-face confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty to a batch of rebels fleeing what seems like an army with that same munitions factory at disposal.  The actual fleeing is captured by very good editing and camera-work, and special effects that really do heighten the tension of the scene.  For a couple of minutes, we're taken from a crime version of a chess game into a war film, and it works.

And in a general sense, the film works.  It's better than the initial "Sherlock" film; it's still fun watching Downey, Jr. simultaneously border insanity and outsmart everyone, there's plenty of cleverness to the proceedings, and what's not clever can be pretty funny.  There's even a gag near the end that almost demands a repeat viewing (I, for one, am going to have to re-watch that scene at the minimum to see if there are shortcuts or if it's a matter of misdirection leading the viewer to not catch on earlier).  I'd have a hard time imagining that this will be anyone's favorite movie, but it's not supposed to be.  It's fun, it's a good sequel, and I'd show up for a third installment, should it come.

3 / 5 - Theatre

Due Date - 2010

"Due Date" - 2010
Dir by Todd Phillips - 1 hr. 35 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

With comedies more than any other type of movie, I leave the theatre disappointed.  Maybe disappointed isn't the right word, more like underwhelmed.  Perhaps I'm continually overestimating the funniness of certain actors and directors, or perhaps it's just that no one hits it out of the park every single time at bat.  "Due Date" falls into that category.  Certainly, if someone were to tell you that Todd Phillips was going to direct a mismatched buddy film with Zach Galafinakis and Robert Downey, Jr. (fresh off "The Hangover"), you're likely going to have some expectations.

I keep finding myself having to back off of how bad I make this movie sound.  It's not a bad movie at all, perhaps a little uneven, but not a bad movie.  There are a number of laugh-out-loud scenes, the characters play fairly well off of one another, but it never coalesces into something more than the sum of it's parts.  I'll put it this way, if you see this movie, you'd probably have a good time.  But you're not going to tell people that it's as funny as "Old School" or "The Hangover" was.  Sure, those are pretty lofty goals, but if you've got those two movies under your belt (like Phillips does), pretty much every movie you make for the rest of your life are going to be judged on that scale.

I'm definitely not saying not to watch this.  I enjoyed myself throughout.  My warning is that it's probably not going to be quite as funny as you hope it will be, so lower your expectations and enjoy.

3 / 5 - Theatre