12 - Thor: The Dark World 11- Iron Man 3 10- Avengers: Age of Ultron 9 - Thor 8 - Iron Man 2 7- The Incredible Hulk 6- Guardians of the Galaxy 5- Ant-Man 4 - The Avengers 3 - Captain America: The First Avenger 2 - Iron Man 1 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
As we move on to Phase 3, or whatever....I have to admit, I am having a hard time getting excited for either Civil War, which looks like Age of Ultron - More of the Same on paper, and Doctor Strange, because I am simply Cumberbatched out.
Just when Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron made me despair for both the Marvel Cinematic Universe AND Joss Whedon, somehow the Kevin Feige-led company has managed to snatch a victory out of the jaws of impending backlash. Ant-Man had long been developed by Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), who unceremoniously left the project weeks before filming, after having cast the film, presumably due to Marvel's corporate-synergy mindset and insistence that every Marvel film should be able to be readily bolted into the unfolding continuity of the series.
So, Wright and his partner Joe Cornish pulled the ejector seat, and now-committed leading man Paul Rudd and Adam McKay (Anchorman) jumped in to try to re-format the story into something that would appease Fiege's need to insert Ant-Man (along with virtually every other character who's ever appeared anywhere in the MCU) into Captain America: Civil War. Meanwhile, Peyton Reed (a personal favorite for no reason other than Down With Love) stepped into the director's chair and proceeded to wrestle the visual challenges into line.
When a filmmaker with such a committed following as Wright leaves a project that he's been shepherding for so long (this project has been in development since BEFORE Iron Man) so dramatically, there is always calls of doom. I've been hearing that Ant-Man would be Marvel's first disaster for over a year.
Well, it's not.
In fact, it's probably the best template on how to proceed with the MCU from this point on. The connections to the rest of the franchise are obvious and clear, but never bog down the story, or get so lost in setting up crap for 2-3 movies down the line as to become annoying. This is streamlined, concise storytelling within a shared universe, and it works. The only point it doesn't is an ill-considered, rather perfunctory trip to Avengers HQ and a fight with The Falcon (Anthonny Mackie). A sequence glaringly not written by Wright, Cornish, Rudd or McKay, but by Civil War scribes Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and directed not by Reed, but by the Civil War directing team of Joe and Anthony Russo.
Now, I actually like that creative team, but the sheer mercenary nature of that choice is kind of gross. It's not that the visuals don't line up, Marvel has perfected "bland" for the visual palate of their shared stories, but just that it's so vastly removed from the story being told, and the connective tissue so weak, you just know you're watching a trailer for the NEXT film, rather than a organic part of this story. The one you're invested in RIGHT NOW.
That's a goddamn shame, because this film is worth focusing on. Paul Rudd has provided Marvel with a charming leading man to match Robert Downey Jr, and without all
the smugness and smarm. I confess, I have had more than enough of RDJ's
Stark at this point. Rudd gives the audience a ultra-appealing lead, and
while he doesn't reach the perfection of Chris Evans' Steve
Rogers/Captain America, he's the kind of lead an audience can build a
long-term connection with.
The film is simply a lot of fun to watch, funny, clever and exciting. Michael Douglas hits the perfect flinty tone for Hank Pym, Scott's mentor and the original Ant-Man. Evangeline Lilly finally makes an impression with me as Pym's daughter, Hope Van Dyne, and Cory Stoll provides a fun, if undercooked villain (which is the case more often than not with Marvel films).
The macro-photography that allows us to see the world from Ant-Man's perspective is never less than visually arresting, and the effects pretty seamless. It's really odd to
even talk about because what it does is allows the film to function as a
story. I never doubted what I was seeing, and so I could focus on
Scott's story.
The story is straightforward and pretty basic. A heist film, and a fairly decent one. All with the underpinning of two fathers trying to re-connect with their daughters, and it makes the story matter. I don't want to harp on it, but, at no point during Age of Ultron, save the side trip to the Barton farm, where the film suddenly came alive for a few minutes before rushing headlong back into dullness, did I really feel like what I was watching matters. It was a cog in a machine. A part of a multi-billion dollar investment that needs to be fed.
By keeping small (no pun intended), Ant-Man made me care. I cared what was happening, and how it would affect the characters I had grown to care about. There was no need to have endless scenes of Avengers putting people on buses out of the combat zone to create a false sense of danger, because the people in danger were right in front of me. The story was immediate, fun, exciting, and worth your money.
Even in 3-D.
Post-Credits: There are two post-credits scenes, and, like the film, the successful one is tied to the story just told rather than the one coming next year.
SO the first Avengers: Age of Ultron teaser trailer hit today. The unreasonable praise has started.
It is a good trailer. I want to see this movie. Of course, I wanted to see this movie 6 months ago.
It is not "a game changer," or "brilliant." It's an effective summer blockbuster trailer. Put this in perspective...I think the Secret Life of Walter Mitty trailer was brilliant, and felt like a game changer. The film was pretty much universally panned. That trailer was all kinds of "outside the box" thinking, and, unfortunately, the film couldn't support it. The Age of Ultron trailer is so far inside the box that some of it feels interchangeable with a dozen other trailers (the Hulkbuster armor will be cool to see, but, lets be rational, the introduction shot in this trailer looks like about 40 shots from the Transformers movies). Which is actually a good thing. I am not expecting a reinvention, just another episode.
I also refuse to name James Spader (who I like very much, and will readily admit has a voice that sounds very disturbing coming out of a robot) is "the greatest comic book villain, ever" based on less than two minutes of performance.
I do like the use of "got no strings." It's very creepy and atmospheric.
But it inspired a list:
The Best Marvel Films, to Date, In My Humble Opinion, from worst to best:
10 - Thor: The Dark World 9 - Iron Man 3 8 - Thor 7 - Iron Man 2 6 - The Incredible Hulk 5 - Guardians of the Galaxy 4 - The Avengers 3 - Captain America: The First Avenger 2 - Iron Man 1 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
First off, and I cannot state this any more strongly:
I will NEVER pay to see a Marvel Studios film in 3-D again.
Never.
Marvel's use of this technology has consistently been sub-par and mercenary. It's simply a gimmick to inflate the box office numbers, and I've had enough. Especially in a year with a film like Gravity showing us how this tech can be used creatively and intrinsically to immerse the audience in the world of the film, Marvel's consistently half-assed presentations simply make me angry.
However, what can I expect when I see a film like Thor: The Dark World.
Is the film bad? No, not at all. It's diverting and provides entertainment. Yet, as with Iron Man 3, I just felt like the whole escapade was simply a matter of going through the motions.
Let's start with the good. I've come to the conclusion that Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are going to be the only couple Marvel ever gives us who actually seem to have a honest physical attraction or relationship. Tony Stark and Pepper Potts seem like a mommy and her petulant child, and, while I loved it in the context of the film, The Steve Rogers/Peggy Carter relationship was SO chaste. Portman and Hemsworth have moments of true sexual chemistry, something sorely lacking in the rest of the franchise.
The cast continues to be game and engaged with their roles. Hemsworth, however, seems a bit trapped by the limitations of the thunder god (Rush showed what he's capable of as a leading man in a way these films can't even remotely come near). Portman, as opposed to the Star Wars prequels, where she just stopped trying, is engaged. Of course, Tom Hiddleston steals the show to the delight of women everywhere who like pale, thin, non-threatening British men.
The film also looks good, with Game of Thrones vet Alan Taylor building some grunge into the Nine Realms, which, in retrospect, seemed lacking in Kenneth Branagh's original film. He coaxes some good moments out of his cast. The pacing and action are handled well. Like I said, it's not a bad movie, and the fact it's not be attributed to Taylor and his cast.
Because the script is awful, for the most part. Christopher Eccelston, a truly gifted actor, is utterly and completely wasted as Malekith, the leader of the dark elves, who are on the hunt for the Aether, which is a really, really uninspiring and ill-defined maguffin. Somehow, the Aether can return the nine realms to the time of darkness, when the dark elves ruled. It's also fluid/gaseous, and is able to worm it's way into Portman's Jane Foster. It could kill her...I guess. The whole function and nature of this stuff is frustratingly ill-defined, and Malekith's hunt for it really lacks much in the way of drive.
(Of course, it's also part of a larger crossover-universe thing, but I'll get to that.)
Which shouldn't be construed as saying nothing happens. Plenty happens, but it all seems really perfunctory. Without getting too spoilery, in the final moments of the film it becomes very, very clear that this entire move was an excuse to move a few pieces around the "Marvel Movie Universe" board, rather than a fleshed-out narrative on it's own.
Which is really frustrating, because it plays right into the biggest pitfalls of this shared narrative universe. The idea of a shared universe is exciting, but this film, much like Iron Man 2 with The Avengers, felt like it was a tossed off story simply there to set up Thor 3. Because it's REALLY obvious where the third film will head, at this point, and everything important that happened in this film probably could been part of the first act of that film.
Then there's the during/after credits tags...one, I'm sure it's no surprise, is designed to lead us to Guardians of the Galaxy, which I am excited about. However, the teaser, which Alan Taylor wants us to know he had nothing to do with, is kind of alarming. I want to believe in James Gunn, but it looks cheap. Like Sci-Fi original cheap. It also gives us the sense that the Aether is tied directly to a BIG piece of Marvel Universe Mythology.
To that I say, "fuck you Marvel." You spend a whole movie with this stuff, and make it confusing and less than inspiring. Then you try to make it important...for the next movie.
In short, this movie didn't need to exist. It's a placeholder, like The Matrix Reloaded, just there to put plotlines and elements in play for other movies. Which would be fine if it was wildly entertaining, but it isn't, it's passably diverting.
So, yeah. I didn't hate it. I didn't get up angry or feeling gypped, like with Man of Steel or Star Trek into Darkness. It happened, and I went home. Being a completist, I'll buy the Blu-Ray. Maybe I'm being too harsh, it's not offensive or insulting. It's just by-the-numbers franchise filmmaking, but after enduring the rampant ego of Iron Man 3, I really wanted this to be better.
He's
not inspired, but he is a competent, no-surprises director who
understands pacing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ratner
was NOT the problem on X-Men: The Last Stand. His directing credits are all pretty watchable, high-concept fluff, with some high points. The Family Man is good, Red Dragon is (surprisingly) quite good (unless you insist on comparing it to Manhunter. I try to take each film on it's own terms), After the Sunset is fun, even if all of those films are clearly "it made money before, make something similar" studio films. And the Rush Hourmovies are exactly the kind of high-value, slicky-made entertainments that Marvel is making right now.
The problem with The Last Stand (which is a good comparison,
since it's his only other superhero credit) was that Fox was pissed that
Bryan Singer (who's, to this day, the ONLY filmmaker who's had a handle
on how to do the X-Men) for doing Superman Returns (far better
than people give it credit for, but too beholden to Richard Donner's film) and dumped
him. They went with a poor script, which Matthew Vaughan- yes, X-Men: First Class
(which, it should be noted, had a script co-developed with Singer)
Matthew Vaughan, oversaw putting together. A script that checked off
fanboy "want list" crap over a cohesive vision. Ratner, was hired VERY
late on that film...Fox had a script and a release date, and Vaughan
freaked and quit.
I will never call The Last Stand the best X-Men movie, but it
is watchable, and the set pieces are well executed and exciting. It
also feels connected with Singer's firsttwo films. Ratner understood
what he needed to do with that script, not step on the toes of what
worked before, what was expected, and keep the shit moving. He's not an
auteur, he's not even a "great" director, but he is a workmanlike one. I
imagine that if he had come up during the days of the studio system
he'd be a "go-to" guy.
Compared to Joss Whedon (if we do a direct Avengers/JLA comparison)...Ratner can't touch him on concepts, scripts,
writing, but there's already a script in play. What Warner's wants is a
pure director, and on a pure technical level, the nuts and blots of
filmmaking, I think Ratner's equal to, or even a bit stronger than, Joss
(even if The Avengers was a big step forward for him).
So, yeah...I understand why they're looking at him. I wouldn't even
be upset if he got the job, because, if he does it, the chances of it
actually getting made probably double. It'll be fun to watch, and
probably faithful to what works. The real question is the script, which
is what really made The Avengers memorable.
Do I wish they'd find somebody really exciting, with a non-corporate
sensibility to really invigorate the JL? Oh. you bet! Justice League's current screenwriter, Will Beall's got a
lot of heat coming off Gangster Squad, so I expect it's an exciting script (faithful, "good," or "the right script?" Who knows?).
Ben Affleck (who's a GREAT director waiting for the world to realize it)
clearly didn't want it. The Wachowskis are NEVER going to do it. Zack Snyder
apparently wants it, but that's because he's exactly what Ratner is,
but with visual flair (even if it's cliche visual flair).
Look at who Marvel's been using; JonFavreau, who was fully B-list (if that) before Iron Man, really (and after Cowboys and Aliens,
may be again). Kenneth Branagh, who was hardly known for this sort of thing.
Joe Johnston, who I think is a fantastic, bordering on genius, workman
director, but also has a "hack" label. Whedon, who we know is a genius,
but he's a TV guy with one flop film and some internet stuff. Shane Black, a huge screenwriter from 15 years ago, who fell off the map, then
made possibly the best film of the 2000's - that nobody saw. They all made great-to-fantastic films.
Honestly, I don't think you can do the shared universe thing with
filmmakers with strong visions and things to say. Christopher Nolan, for example,
wouldn't want to, and I think, flatly, he couldn't. He wanted to work
with themes and psychological elements that would be completely
invalidated the second ChristianBale'sBatman walked into a JLA meeting
room. The saddest thing, to me, is that kind of vision, that kind of
pushing at the concept, thanks to Marvel, is dead and gone. Hollywood is
fixated on "team 'em up" now.
Yes, Wheadon...who definitely had a strong vision, but what he
wanted to say was "gee whiz! The Marvel Universe is neato!!" I think he
looks at this like working on a TV show...you can make very, very fun,
exciting drama, but, except in VERY rare cases, you're not going to be
transcendent. Which is probably the healthiest place to be, and those
checks will pay for his Much Ado, and the Dr. Horrible follow-up.
So, yeah...the collective Internet groan may head off Ratner, but the ultimate choice is going to be in the same realm. What I really wish is that Andrew Stanton hadn't so quickly slunk back to PIXAR for Finding Nemo 2 after the pounding he took over John Carter (a top-ten movie for 2012 in my book...screw the box office). He would be an excellent choice for Justice League, or heck, what about Brad Bird? The Incredibles is still one of the best superhero movies ever made, and flat-out the Best fantastic Four movie. I think he proved himself completely with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. These are both mid-tier guys who might take the job as another stepping stone, and represent clear, strong visions of the properties they tackle.
Lord, I hate the "Marvel's" in that title. It typifies much of what troubles me about Marvel's film output. The characters, rather than creative engines, are now commercial money-machines. A situation that I can only see continuing with the ownership by the Disney overlords....
That said, somehow, despite their tight-fisted ways, Marvel has managed to rope truly talented people into their motion picture factory. Artists who are able to work within the company's rather rigid commercial framework and generate truly entertaining material. Perhaps Kevin Feige and his team have learned from the Iron Man 2 stumble, wherein building the shared "Marvel Movie Universe," and laying the groundwork for Marvel's The Avengers, basically overwhelmed the movie.
That's a macro view of the situation, honestly, and sounds much harsher than I mean it. Ultimately, The Avengers is a film that shouldn't really exist, yet it does. Joss Whedon shouldn't be directing a HUGE tent-pole summer blockbuster, but he did. Truth to tell, the film shouldn't be any good. Robert Downey Jr's star power should've overwhelmed the rest of the cast. The Hulk hasn't REALLY worked twice before on film. Too many characters, etc.
But it does. Marvel's The Avengers does work. Like gangbusters.
The film has a spark and energy that is very hard to deny, the performances are all winners, except Samuel L. Jackson,. who, once again, just kind of puts on his "badass" face and wanders around. I was particularly worried that Downey would just bulldoze the rest of the cast, and Whedon's comments about downey's first words to him being "now you know Tony has to drive this thing, right?" didn't ally that fear. While Stark does still end up pretty central to the proceedings, the rest of the cast wisely realizes that the best defense is to not even run with him. Chris Evans once again is letter-perfect as Steve "Captain America" Rogers, and Chris Hemsworth is possibly even more winning as Thor than he was in his own film. Scarlett Johanssen finally comes into her own as Black Widow, and Jeremy Renner is fine as Clint "Hawkeye" Barton (although the man is a HORRIBLE bowman).
The real winner in this team, aside from Whedon, is Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner, and, for the first time, The Hulk himself. It's no exaggeration to say that the Hulk steals the whole show. Ruffalo's low-key performance just brings the ball home. If there is truth to the rumors that the popularity of the Hulk (and his merchandise - More of that "Marvel's" attitude) may lead to another attempt at a film, you've finally got the star to make it work.
There are things that don't work. I don't think there's any spoiler in saying that an alien invasion occurs, arranged by Thor's adopted brother Loki (the marvelous Tom Hiddleston - a bravura turn). The Chitauri are faceless, bland, and ultimately not all that threatening. Oh, yeah, they cause lots of spectacular destruction and mess, but when you see them getting taken down left and right by a guy with a bow and arrow, and a gal with a couple of semi-auto pistols...it kinda undercuts the threat. Plus, they have ZERO personality. No one seems in charge of what they're doing. Loki doesn't seem like he's commanding the attack. I'd have liked a 3rd act threat that didn't feel like a part of a mass. Perhaps a Chitauri general for Captain America to engage one-on-one?
It's a minor quibble. One that really only came to me after I saw the film a second time. Joss keeps the action fast a furious, and the one-liners flying. It's all so well executed and full of pep that you just have to let the few weak points slide. Marvel's The Avengers is a rousing start to the Summer movie season, and just a ton of fun.
Well worth your time and money, but I can safely say, having seen it both 3-D and 2-D, that 3-D adds nothing to the experience. Save the $5, and don't worry about it. It's no Avatar or Hugo, where the 3-D works wonderfully, and adds to the film.
Yes, an honest-to-God superhero team-up movie is now shooting. With fairly big name stars attached. Tying together a actual Marvel Universe on film.
That is pretty amazing.
Now, I have been pretty vocal about what I think are problems in the Marvel Studios model, and I don't back down from those comments. That said, every fanboy in the world's little heart must've leapt a beat when Writer(?)/Director Joss Whedon blogged about starting. We are actually going to see The Avengers on film. That's undeniably cool, and exciting.
Oh, but Marvel? That picture you released today (see above)? It's pretty uninspiring, sorry.
But, here comes the $64,000 question that no one really wants to ask, and that it seems the assembled fandom doesn't even care about:
Will it be any good?
I actually have very little fear that it will be bad, I tend to have faith in Whedon, but there is a nagging sense of a problem with Marvel Studios and, in particular, how Kevin Feige is pushing this Marvel "cinematic universe." The company has a plan, which is always a good thing, but it also seems the plan is more important to the company than the people who are supposed to execute it.
I mean, we need only look to the whole Edward Norton debacle. Feige and Marvel simply kicked Norton to the curb because he was aggressive about trying to make The Incredible Hulk as good as possible. Sure, I bet Norton was difficult to work with at times, but the director, Louis Leterrier, seemed OK with it, and they even had a "directors cut" they collaborated on, and were apparently happy with...
But Marvel wasn't. Which I suppose is fine, they put up the cash. Still the tone, and vitriol spewed by Feige in his comments about Norton. Weird.
Now, Norton's out, and Mark Ruffalo is in. Which is cool with me, as I really like Ruffalo on film, but I also really liked Norton's Bruce Banner. I will always feel that was a dead-end that didn't have to be.
The whole Avengers cast is solid, and Whedon has lots of experience with ensemble casts that all need to get their moments, so I feel like he'll work that out. It's also been nice to see they way things have been layered in, and layered together, through the Iron Man films, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger, and Thor to point us into The Avengers. It's been pretty well handled, if a bit too eager to stroke the fanboys.
Trust me, the only people clamoring for a Hawkeye film are the 10 guys who show up for the "We LOVE Hawkeye" panel at Sand Diego Comi-Con every year, and half of them think it's got something to do with Alan Alda. No one in their right mind would be talking about a movie franchise about a character with A) no memorable villains to speak of, and B) an actor who's already got two other franchisesin the gate.
Oh, wait...You can just replace him, and issue snarky press releases, right?
OK, that was a bit snarky of me, as well.
Honestly, the biggest hurdle facing Marvel Studios right now, are the fans themselves. I mean, it's becoming abundantly clear, at this point, that assembled fandom will fall all over themselves at the idea of their favorite comic being turned into a movie. They will do this to the point where they can't even remotely tell if the movie's any damn good or not.
That's the road to ruin, boys and girls.
Feige's comments in D23 just make it clear that your over-enthusiasm has bred an over-confidence. Those cheering fans in Hall H at San Diego are the bread and butter, sure...but they've also shown themselves to be willing to accept garbage. Accept it and lionize it as genius, vehemently, then turn around and call it crap six months later. The burst of excitement at release cannot hold.
For example: I almost got into fist fights upon release of Superman Returns, because I dared to say that, while I liked it (and still do), I thought it was too beholden to the Richard Donner film with Christopher Reeve. Now, the film seems universally reviled. I'd say unfairly.
We've evolved, as fans into "all or nothing" creatures. Everything is either awesome, or it sucks, and everything new is awesome. When, the fact is, almost everything is somewhere in the middle. It's this lack of true critical thinking that, eventually, leads to studios (not just Marvel), shoving out any bit of drivel, and expecting us to love it.
They start pushing a product, a plan, instead of trying to make each film as cohesive, and as good, as possible.
Now, before somebody crawls down my throat in regards to my blog on Tuesday, conceptually, this is a fine teaser. It gets the idea across, and, while visually it's kinda dull (even the stock footage of flying through clouds in the Superman: The Movie teaser has more visual punch), it's a perfectly acceptable tease to show before bringing out the cast. What else are you gonna show, right?
My issue is with the voice over.
I mean, look...Samuel L. Jackson is a great actor, but it seems that whenever he gets involved with one of these properties he's supposedly excited about (Star Wars the other prime example), the bottom falls out. He suddenly becomes this caricature of himself, and you get the overwhelming feeling he's absolutely not engaged in the process at all.
I can kinda accept that in Snakes on a Plane, because that's the whole joke, but when you talk about how excited you are to be Mace Windu, or Nick Fury? I expect something more than what we've been getting. Jackson's voice-over on this clip is just flatline, phoned in, and, lets be honest, his whole performance in Iron Man 2 wasn't much better.
Anyway, that's not really what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the way superior filmmakers can get maligned and pushed aside because...I don't know...They try to make films outside the "geek strata"
This comment from "loserguy3000" really struck me, specifically the point I've highlighted in bold:
...Forget that the one stumbling block of every major comic book embarrassment (looking right at you, Batman & Robin) is overloading characters into one movie, the unknown element of practically requiring people to have seen EVERY Marvel movie (which Hulk proved isn't happening), two unreleased Marvel movies of questionable quality (Captain America is being directed by a known hack), a potentially embarrassing Thor movie (let's be honest...it looks uneven), and most of all, Mr. Whedon hoping to reign all this in while proving himself against all evidence to the contrary that he can handle such a thing...
Now, loserguy makes some decent points, especially about the multiple characters issue. However, Captain America: The First Avenger (**sigh**...can we let the film stand on it's own, before we start the crossovers, please?) is being directed by one Mr. Joe Johnston. I'd like to invite you to look at his imdb.com page.
Now, look, Johnston hasn't directed a ton of stuff, seven major motion pictures, but I wonder how many "loserguy3000" has under his belt? That aside, take a look at the films Johnston has done. All are pretty old-style "Classic Hollywood" in scope, but also embrace modern film technology. He's also proven that he can adapt his visuals to the style required for the film in question. The Wolfman, good or no (and a troubled production before Johnston ever stepped in to take over), literally drips with gothic horror detail. Hildalgo positively glows. You can feel the coal grime in every frame of October Sky (a personal favorite).
He can also handle action beats, Jurassic Park III is the Jurassic Park sequel that Spielberg couldn't make himself. There are moments when I think it works better than the original. I know, heresy, but whatever.
Still, I'm convinced that Johnston is the absolute best choice I could imagine to direct a World War II-set Captain America movie. When his name was announced, I literally told everyone, "well, they got that one right." Why? Because Johnston has already made a film that's, essentially, everything a movie about Captain America ought to be...
Yeah, I'm talking about The Rocketeer from 1991. A movie that would still, to this day, appear on my "top 5 comic book movie adaptations" list. I mean, look at this:
"I may not make an honest buck, but I'm 100% American." Folks, that's the kind of stuff that a Captain America movie needs, and when Cliff is about to lift off from the observatory, the pose, the "go get 'em kid," it's exactly right. What does it tell us about Johnston? That he understands how to portray that golden age comic book feel on screen.
Yeah, I'd hope he goes a little grittier. I'd like battle sequences to reflect a PG-13 version of Saving Private Ryan, remind the young audiences of today just what was going on and what ordinary men were doing for their country. Is there an element of cheese? Oh, sure...but if you don't embrace what Captain America is, what he represents, the movie will fail. If you go for "cool" instead of "heartfelt," the movie will fail.
Captain America's the living embodiment of everything that is good, and everyone knows is good, about America, like Bruce Springsteen, and, like Bruce Springsteen, a lot of that is pretty damn cheesy. Cheesy in a way that is un-ironic and not sarcastic. It's not Team America, with "America, F*CK YEAH!!," no, it's America as the place with an open hand for those who need it, and strong enough to stand up and say "no" those who would exploit the needy. It's Chris Reeve as Superman, and, unless you go there, it's an utter failure.
You don't need Michael Bay or Zach Snyder, with heart buried under slickness and "cool." You need someone who'll have a gangster toss aside his self-interest when he realizes he's working for a Nazi, and stand as an American. You need a filmmaker who understands that's what this character is about, and can make you believe it. The character is named Captain America, you cannot absolve yourself of the political implications of that, even if Marvel has kinda tried to in the comics over the last decade, or so.
A similar story. I remember when George Miller was going to make a Justice League movie, and there was a kid, probably mid-teens, on one of the message boards I frequented, who kept talking about how they didn't give the film to an "action director," like they should've, but "a guy that made kids films." Obviously, the kid only looked far enough on Miller's imdb page to see Happy Feet and Babe.
Not an action director? He only made...
Which, I think we can all agree, is one of the greatest action films of all time.
People need to take a long, good look at the work people have done in the past (Yes, kids, even from before you were born), and understand exactly what kind of skills and sensibilities they are bringing to table. Sure, you can debate the merits of their work, and if it lends itself to what you, personally, would like to see. Calling Johnston a "hack" is just lazy, and incorrect. It puts him on a level with the likes of Uwe Boll or Albert Pyun (and, really...his Captain America isn't a total loss). Joe Johnston is not a hack.
Marvel found the right guy, I think. If you've been too wrapped up in the idea that Johnston isn't "hot," and maybe you haven't seen his movies, maybe you ought to go check a few out before you start calling the man a hack.
NOTICE: I'm putting "Monday with The Boss" on hold until after Comic-Con is over. I can't keep a regular schedule on it until then, and I should've waited until after things died down to start. It's just difficult to make time to listen to/watch something specific and comment right at the moment.
So, there's a bit of a flap in play around Marvel films' The Avengers right now.
Apparently, Norton and director Louis Leterrier had much more they wanted to do and say with the film, but Marvel pulled them from the editing room. Now, Norton was deeply involved with the development of this film, even re-writing the script. Looking at it from my perspective, Norton had firmly committed to making The Incredible Hulk the best movie he could. Marvel, instead of using this input (Norton is a talented actor, and writes and directs...he can make a worthwhile contribution), shuts him out.
Stupid.
I think Marvel was terrified of repeating the failure of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk. A film which I feel is unfairly crapped upon. Yeah, it could've used more "HULK SMASH!!!!," but it was a thoughtful, adult comic book-inspired movie. Which, after years of telling people "comics aren't just for kids," might've been something to consider more than fandom did.
So, personally, I prefer Lee's film. That said, I think that Leterrier's version has plenty that's good. Prime among that is Norton's performance.
Still, after all that was said and done back in '08, I thought they'd NEVER get Norton back for The Avengers. Now, in Drew's article, Norton is taking meetings, apparently excited to join the ensemble, only to get passed over.
"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."
And to that I say...Woah. I mean, seriously, that's a press release bitchslap. What the hell happened?
Looking at this, again, from my perspective, Norton's agent, Brian Swardstrom, is absolutely correct. If Marvel was just making a financial decision, so be it. It happens. The fact they went out of their way to be bitchy, and cast a bad light on Norton, is just ridiculous.
But, you see...I think this was inevitable. Marvel Films has made a big splash by trying to run their film productions like a comic book company, unified universes, cast crossovers, etc, etc. This whole plan was pointing to The Avengers, where the franchises they were building would come together in a huge, splashy adventure.
The troubling part, based on this recent development, is that you begin to realize that the selling point of The Avengers is solely on seeing these characters, that you know from other films, together. It's easy to have Iron Man meet Bruce Banner in the comics, you just draw them. Not so easy when established actors are involved.
The fact is, now that Marvel has been pushing the "Marvel Movie Universe," these actors ARE these characters. We have a relationship with Norton's Banner, an established character, and that's what makes it interesting to see him interact with Robert Downey Jr's established Tony Stark. Marvel may be learning that your unified movie universe is a double edged sword. Sure, it's exciting, but it also means we expect things. Things like seeing the same faces as the same characters.
The side issue here is that, by sidelining Norton, Marvel's apparent plan to make a big splash at Comic-Con by introducing Joss Whedon as the director, and having the entire ensemble stand with him, is shot. Swardstrom's press release makes it abundantly clear that Whedon is the director, which Marvel had clearly been holding off until "the right moment" to announce, and that the plan was for a big-deal press op in San Diego. If they go ahead with it, the only people in the San Diego Convention Center that will be truly impressed will be the mainstream press, who are pretty clueless about this stuff.
I really don't have any sympathy for Marvel here, at all. They've pushed an agenda that brought them to this point. They wanted "names" for their characters. Not HUGE names, but actors you've heard of. Actors who are going to understand that their participation is a valuable asset, and are going to use that. Marvel seems to want the cachet of saying "Edward Norton as Dr. Bruce Banner," without accepting the creative input that comes with it.
They wanted a unified universe, where characters will routinely appear in each other's films. Now they find that building that universe can get in the way of the film's primary story, a la Iron Man 2. Also that we, as fans, expect continuity to mean just that...an expectation that we'll see the same faces again. You can pull a Terrance Howard/Don Cheadle switch because, frankly, Howard didn't make that big an impression in the first Iron Man, and Cheadle is, well, Don Cheadle.
Who are they getting to replace Edward Norton? Joaquin Phoenix, maybe. That sound like trading up, to you?
Didn't think so. Not to me, either. No disrespect to Mr. Phoenix, because I like his work, but Norton is, well, Edward Norton.
I just see that Norton finally commented personally, on his Facebook page:
"I am so appreciative of the outpouring of support from fans of the Hulk and The Avengers that I feel it would be rude not to respond," his statement reads in part.
"So here goes: It seems it won't work out for me to continue playing Bruce Banner for Marvel in The Avengers. I sincerely hoped it could happen and be great for everyone, but it hasn't turned out as well as we hoped. I know this is disappointing to many people and that makes me sad. But I am very sincerely grateful to Marvel for extending the offer and even more so for giving me the chance to be a part of the Hulk's long and excellent history."
Now, Norton's clearly playing spin himself, but...compare that statement to Feige's. Tell me who comes off with more class.
My original plan was to skip all the movie panels at SDCC, but, I think this may be too much of a soap opera to miss out on.
So, being a good little fanboy, I managed to see Iron Man 2 twice this weekend. I went on my lonesome Saturday morning, and then again for "date night" (last one before tech hell) with CByrd on Sunday.
Generally speaking, this is a highly entertaining popcorn flick. I'd say it's about on par, quality -wise, with the first one. It's a slam-bang comic book action flick anchored by an unendingly charismatic lead performance.
Of course, that kind of worries me, but I'll get to that in a bit.
Sticking to the film itself, I'm sure to let slip some spoilers. It's kind of unavoidable if I want to talk about the things that bothered me here. This is not to say I didn't have a good time, because I did. The movie keeps the pacing up, and never fails to be entertaining. The new characters are interesting, if underused, and the final battle sequence is arguably better than in the first film. It's more than worth seeing on the big screen, as you will not walk out feeling like you got less than your money's worth.
The film is entertaining, but problematic is that, especially in the second act, it's sort of in spite of itself. The plot fairly grinds to a halt in order to trot in Samuel L. Jackson so he can shovel exposition and lay groundwork for The Avengers. It only stays aloft because of the sheer star power of Robert Downey Jr. Literally, this movie, and probably the last, would be really poor if not for Downey.
Specific gripes, on a technical side, would be that the action sequence connected to Tony Stark's birthday party is just horrid-looking. Worst CGI I've seen in a film of this scale in a long while. Especially troubling when the sequence could've been done with a couple of stuntmen in the real suits Marvel made such a big deal about building. The CGI models simply lack heft and weight, to my eye. Totally threw me out of the story for the entire sequence.
Also very, very underwhelmed by the ultimate confrontation between Iron Man, War Machine and Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko (who uses elements of Iron Man villains Whiplash and The Crimson Dynamo, but is never actually called either). The sequence follows and amazing action set piece in and around the Stark Expo pavilions, which is paced quite ingeniously and manages to keep raising the stakes and the "wow" factor.
Then Vanko shows up again, in another, larger suit of armor. Which is...exactly how the last film ended. Truly, as a visual, Rourke's appearance in the Monaco Gran Prix sequence (which is where all the publicity stills come from) is far more compelling and interesting than how he looks at the climax. Like I said, the sequence itself probably works better than the one in the last film, but I really felt a "been here, done that" response.
Director John Favreau has talked a lot about how Iron Man's more "magical" villains, like The Mandarian and Fin Fang Foom, don't fit in the vaguely realistic, "high-tech" world he's created. Well, in a film that includes a direct reference to what's probably Marvel's most magical and otherworldly hero...I felt myself yearning for Tony Stark to confront something that really took him out of his comfort zone. However, the whole film has an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" feel. Which isn't all bad, because this is no sophomore slump that a third film will have to "apologize" for, but it also doesn't take many risks.
I may seem like I've got a lot of gripes. I want to be clear as a bell here. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. My problems are on technical levels, be it with special effects, or storytelling techniques. I work as a storyteller, I think about this stuff, and I probably know way too much about special effects for my own good. I am wholeheartedly recommending it as a great time at the movies, but it's not perfect.
Now, there's another area to critique. This movie is where the hard-core build-up to The Avengers starts, and, frankly, I have to kinda look at that on it's own. I mean, the film stops dead to bring in Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D., and remind us that The Avengers is in the offing...
...And that's kind of the problem.
The Avengers stuff never feels organic or connected to the story we're trying to tell right now. Oh, the script give Jackson's Nick Fury some exposition and a Deux Ex Machina moment to try to connect this stuff to what's going on, but it just feels weak. When this whole "master plan" to take us from Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, through Iron Man 2, next year's Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, ultimately dropping us on 2012's The Avengers, was first announced...I was skeptical. The work they do to progress the "Marvel Movie Universe" here doesn't really help my skepticism.
First and foremost...the only franchise Marvel's really gotten off the ground is 100% dependent on it's star. The scripts for both Iron Man films have been serviceable, or even less than serviceable, but it's only via Downey that any magic happens. I'll give Favreau credit too, he's putting this package together, and it's clear he understands how important letting Downey play is. Likewise, much of my enjoyment of The Incredible Hulk was tied to Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, and they managed to burn that bridge to the ground with the ugly post-production.
In essence, it feels like Marvel Productions has gotten really damn lucky, and that's great, good on them. I want these films to be entertaining and good. However, I think they're also missing something very, very important when you're working with superhero characters.
Where's the inspiration? A huge part of comic books for me were the moments of inspiration, the moments when these characters showed me what heroism meant, how we can transcend our own fears and weaknesses to rise to the occasion and strive for greatness. That, like the great tales of Hercules or any other folk hero, are part and parcel of the superhero iconography. That's, to me, the social role of these characters.
It's also been largely absent from Marvel's films, so far. Especially when you compare these movies to films like Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, or Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films, or especially Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Yes, it's cool to think of the building of a unified Marvel Universe on film, but it's nowhere near as emotional as watching Batman allow himself to be branded a murderer to preserve the reputation of a heroic man twisted by fate. Seeing Nick Fury show up and talk about The Avengers garnered a "heh, cool," but the final moments of The Dark Knight simply took my breath away.
I wish Marvel Productions would take some of that screen time they're burning to interconnect everything and really make me feel something. These characters deserve that. (In the case of Captain America, the film simply won't work unless they find it.) The reason Spider-Man, Superman, even Iron Man have wormed their way into our hearts has a lot to do with being drop-dead cool, no doubt, but, even more so, I think, with making the kid inside of me wonder just what he's capable of accomplishing, too.
