Avengers: Age of Ultron

Released:  May 1^st, 2015

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Walt Disney Studios

Starring:  Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, James Spader

Directed by:  Joss Whedon

Written by:  Joss Whedon

Personal Bias Alert:  Joss Whedon fan, bored of comic book movies

6.5 of 10

            The summer movie season is here, and Marvel is kicking it off yet again with Avengers:  Age of Ultron.  The team of Iron Man (billionaire playboy crime fighter), Hulk (green rage monster), Thor (golden god), Captain America (enhanced good ol’ boy), Black Widow (former Russian spy), and Hawkeye (bow and arrow dude) have reassembled to finish what they started in The Avengers:  to get every remnant of Loki off their planet.  Despite, or because of, their super powers/skills, they are incredibly bad at this task, with Iron Man instead creating a homicidal machine named Ultron.  Ultron’s got daddy issues, so the Avengers are the first on his hit list, followed by the rest of humanity.  So there’s your threat that only a super-special team can defeat, and the movie proceeds from here like pretty much every other movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

            As someone who’s not a fan of Marvel’s popcorn movies, the grinding gears of yet another bad guys vs. good guys plotline that does little delving into character or themes is getting annoying, but at least here you have Joss Whedon.  That means you get some good one-liners thrown in, but the Marvel franchise has replaced character traits with character connections, and the amount of i’s and t’s Whedon must dot and cross to keep the universe going leaves almost no time for anything outside the plot.  Marvel has drawn a line in the sand, and with the success they’re experiencing, they aren’t about to cross it to convert the stragglers like me.  It seems that most people enjoy what they’re cooking, and if you liked The Avengers and all the other movies, you’ll like Age of Ultron as well.

            The main cast of Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner all return and play their parts with the ease of those who’ve been there and done that.  Joining the cast are Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as twins with powers of their own and James Spader in the voice/motion capture performance of Ultron.  Taylor-Johnson and Olsen get a couple decent scenes, but mostly they’re navigating action sequences à la last year’s Godzilla.  Spader brings his trademark borderline-lazy nonchalance, which is to be expected but doesn’t quite work in the major villain role.  This failure mostly falls on Whedon, who wrote Ultron with Spader in mind and ultimately never got the character quite right.  Ultron’s presumptive and petulant, characteristics that don’t lend themselves well to a very menacing Big Bad, and there’s many illusions to him being an evil Pinocchio despite the fact that Frankenstein’s monster is a much more fitting comparison. 

Age of Ultron is hampered by many other problems, some of which stem from the film’s own premise.  The big difficulty with this group is that they aren’t really unified.  They come and go as their own priorities pop up, and their fighting abilities are all over the map.  The times when they’re actually all together are rare, and when they split up there always seems to be some character that is simply forgotten about.  Hulk is continuously left behind in action sequences, Thor disappears for a large portion of the down-time, and Iron Man is always flying away from everyone else.  They are a team in only the loosest sense of the word, and the effort it takes to bring them all together makes for some glaring contrivances.

            An even bigger issue is the nagging sense that the film feels tired, which comes from the audience as much as from the filmmakers.  Whedon has been vocal about how difficult Age of Ultron was to make, and many of the cast members have expressed interest in leaving the franchise.  Then you have the unfortunate fact that filmgoers have seen so many similar things in the past year.  Obviously, Taylor-Johnson/Whedon’s Quicksilver fails to live up to the frenzy that the character’s appearance in X-Men:  Days of Future Past created, but there’s also the success of Guardians of the Galaxy, which thrived on its sense of humor and makes the banter in Age of Ultron seem lacking.  Smaller things, like the humorous coincidence that the original brain-version of Ultron looks exactly like the robot brains in Ex Machina, doesn’t help the timing issues.  However, the main problem seems to be the lack of passion from Whedon and company, and it translates onto the final product.

            Despite these downfalls, those making Age of Ultron are talented enough to make a decent film even on autopilot.  With the expectations and the odds stacked against it, the fact that the film is even decent is a bit of a triumph.  But if the world’s going to invest a quarter of a billion dollars into anything, shouldn’t it be more than decent?

Other Notes (Ridiculous Superhero Version):

Ø  How is the ability to get in people’s head and shoot red things from your hands connected?

Ø  Why did they have that squishy CGI look in the opening sequence?

Ø  Why did they make Cap adamant that civilians weren’t getting hurt in the middle of a massive battle where civilians were obviously getting hurt?

Other Notes (Regular Version):

Ø  Those twins were awkwardly close. 

Ø  The crowd shots really highlighted how utterly white the Avengers are.

Ø  Can we discuss the fact that the woman named Scarlett didn’t play the Scarlet Witch?

Lost in Translation

Released:  October 3^rd, 2003

Rated:  R

Studio:  Focus Features

Starring:  Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris, Fumihiro Hayashi

Directed by:  Sofia Coppola

Written by:  Sofia Coppola

Personal Bias Alert:  prone to ennui when traveling, not very interested in visiting Japan

8.8 of 10

            Lost in Translation came along fairly early in my life, when I was just budding into a ‘movie person.’  It was a time when I could still go into a film with few preconceived notions, mostly unaware of a person’s back catalog and trademark ticks.  I knew Bill Murray, of course, but only from his massive comedy hits like Ghostbusters.  It would be a few years before I became captivated by Scarlett Johansson in Ghost World and much longer still before I understood how unusual it was to have an esteemed filmed be helmed by a woman.  Remember, writer/director Sofia Coppola is one of only four women to ever be nominated for Best Director by the Academy and one of only a handful to win the screenplay award solo.  I’m more than happy to know these things now, to bang the drum whenever I get the chance, but part of me longs for the time before I thought about these things, when I could truly be knocked out by how great a piece of work is without qualifiers like “Yeah, but he’s always good.’

            Lost in Translation brings out thoughts like this, remembrances of little moments and things gone by.  The story exists between two people lost in these thoughts, spinning their wheels in an unfamiliar country and finding solace in each other.  Murray plays a washed-up actor who’s come to shoot a commercial while Johansson plays a young woman tagging along with her photographer husband.  To be honest, I’ve never been able to remember these character’s names.  I looked them up and felt no recognition despite finishing the movie a mere ten minutes earlier.  I suppose I simply don’t see them as actual people, but instead identify them as aspects of myself.  I’ve been restlessly resigned like Murray, and I often imagine myself (and wish for the moment) when I can dismissively exclaim “Evelyn Waugh was a man.”  I read on IMDB that the characters never introduce themselves to each other.  Perhaps that means I’m taking them as Coppola wished me to, as a fleeting aspect of my own person instead of full-fledged people.

            Whatever Coppola intended, she certainly created an atmospheric little film.  It shuffles along, taking in the numerous things Japan has to offer with the confused awe of an outsider.  We stare with the characters as a dinosaur lumbers across a building-sized screen, a women pads along in an elegant dress, and the hotel employees pay an inordinate amount of attention to the American guests.  This film is part travelogue, giving people who haven’t gone to this part of the world a taste for the good and bad it has to offer.

            This lackadaisical pace certainly sets the appropriate mood for its character’s introspective journeys.  If ever a movie captured the feeling of ennui that can set in during travel, it’s Lost in Translation.  The two characters are in very different places in their lives, Murray lamenting the way life has settled and Johansson struggling to get it started.  Their inability to fully grasp these problems is one of the many things that’s lost in translation, yet they’re still able to recognize each other’s troubled boredom.  Striking up a quick friendship, they explore the city and each other, taking the time to really listen and allow each other to formulate their grievances.  You get the sense that they’ve both been waiting for someone to shut up and listen, and it probably took being stuck in a place so immobilizing foreign for them to find the necessary time to give each other.

            Very little exists in this film outside of Murray, Johansson, and Japan, and that’s more than enough to make an affecting film.  Murray and Johansson nail every aspect of their characters and the complicated relationship between them.  I remember being entranced by them when I first saw it, then glancing over to see my Mom with a look on her face I didn’t understand.  Now I know it as a look of deep recognition, that the movie must have reached out and touched some aspect of her I didn’t yet know about.  As I’ve gotten older, Murray and Johansson’s relationship has only deepened to me, but I’m sure I still don’t understand as much about it as my Mom did all those years ago.  I’ll wait twenty more years and get back to you on that.

            My quibbles with this film are few and far between.  I’ve always thought that the airhead actress and Murray’s wife were trite and unrealistic.  There’s two scenes where the literal interpretation of lost in translation is drug out into an off-putting joke, and I find the lounge singer’s hair color vaguely unsettling.  Obviously, none of these are significant turn-offs, and what really knocks the score down a bit is how inconsistent my reaction to this film is.  I find that if I go into it with the wrong mood I’m drastically less affected by it.  I’ve never been able to place exactly why that is, but I do think that truly great films elicit strong reactions after every viewing. 

            That being said, there are times when I go into this film with a sense of discontent and find it revelatory.  It captures how sometimes, when you’re in the right headspace, even the smallest gestures can be enchanting and little moments can wedge themselves permanently into your brain.

            Other Notes: 

Ø  There’s a moment about halfway through the film that’s always stuck out to me.  Murray and Johansson are hanging out on his bed, and as Murray leans forward to set down a bottle he kicks his feet up in the air.  It’s an avoidably awkward motion that shows just how comfortable he is with her, and I always find that moment very endearing.

Ø  This was filmed in a quick 27 days, completely opposite the film’s lackadaisical pace.

Ø  Here’s a good article about the lack of female writers recognized by the Academy:  http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/the-big-o-oscar-needs-to-honor-more-women-with-the-write-stuff-20141113

Lucy

Released:  July 25^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Columbia

Staring:  Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Amr Waked, Choi Min-Sik

Directed by:  Luc Besson

Written by:  Luc Besson

Personal Bias Alert:  likes smart thrillers, knows science

4.5 of 10

            2014 perhaps best epitomizes Scarlett Johansson’s career.  She’s been in four major releases (I’m counting “Under the Skin”), which span from big summer blockbusters to science fiction art films.  Their budgets ranged from $13-$170 million and have made between $2.5 and $713 million worldwide.  Her roles have included a quipy spy, a charming restaurant hostess, and a near-mute alien discovering humanity.   My point is, it’s been varied.  Johansson’s doggedly avoided being typecast throughout her career, and while that may have dimmed her star power, it’s earned her the respect of many film fans, including myself.

            “Lucy” gives her the opportunity to be a badass, although not in the most traditional sense.  While being forced to act as a drug mule, her character, Lucy, absorbs a large amount of a new drug that allows her to access all parts of her brain.  This somehow makes her superhuman, with power over gravity, matter, and generally all rules of science.  She’s by far the most powerful person on the planet, so she’s got that calm, cool, smartest-person-in-the-room aura going on.  Add in that her rapidly increasing intellect disconnects her from human emotions, and you’ve got a character that can and does walk into a room of armed gangsters without blinking an eye.  There’s a cool badassery to that, and it’s the kind of role Johansson is definitely capable of.

            Written and directed by Luc Besson, “Lucy” exudes his trademark stylishness.  The action sequences are the focus, and while they are often relatively straightforward gunfights, Besson and long-time cinematographer Thierry Arbogast film them in such a way that they slide pleasantly along.  They’re always entertaining, but never really thrilling.  The whole film feels imbued with a sort of mediocrity, and I get the sense that that’s exactly what Besson was shooting for.  He wanted a slick little action film for an attractive actress to slink her way through, and that’s exactly what he made.

            Where this film catches for me, and where I think it will catch for anyone who keeps their brain turned on while watching it, is in the absurdity of its central premise.  The whole thing’s based on junk science, the long-debunked idea that there are parts of our brain that we don’t use.  This would be fine if it was only brought up as a way to explain her intelligence and then was quickly dropped, but no, this film keeps it at the forefront, constantly going back to it and horrifyingly building on it until nearly every plot point is based on a variety of junk science ideas.  Now I’m not arguing that Besson or anyone involved actually thinks this is real science.  No, I think they are just using it as a means to an end, an easy way to get to the extraordinary final scene.  The end sequence still makes no sense from a scientific perspective, but it’s so gorgeous to look at that I, for the first time in the film, felt a thrill.

            The scientific inaccuracies grate on me so much because I care greatly about science.  I’m aware that most people won’t have this hurdle to overcome, but I think the overall lack of care given to the story and the characters will grate on anyone who wants something with some heft.  “Lucy” is knowingly style over substance, and if that’s cool with you, then go have fun seeing this film.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I assume Johansson was told to overact at the beginning?

Ø  I think they did some ADR of Morgan Freeman explaining the ending, and it was remarkably bad.  It was far louder than any of the dialogue had been up to that point and sounded far too clean.

Ø  I’m sorry, but I have to correct this:  evolution does not have purpose.  There is no end goal in mind.

Ø  Felt like way longer than 1 hour 29 minutes.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

7 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  This is my first Captain America movie, not a fan of blockbusters

            I can’t help but feel that my inexperience with the Marvel franchise has given me an unusual perspective on “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier.”  The lone film I’ve seen from the Marvel universe is “Iron Man.”  No Thor, Hulk, Avengers, or Captain America.  I also never read the comics, nor do I recall watching cartoons of any of these characters as a kid.  Here’s the rundown on my knowledge of Cap going into the film:  was a soldier in one of the world wars, the military made him into a super soldier, carries a shield, probably American.  This dearth of knowledge made me very concerned that I would get lost watching “The Winter Soldier,” but thanks to its clear storytelling my worries were unfounded.

            Captain America/Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans) starts this film at an oddly quiet time in his life.  Work has slowed, and he has enough time to start mulling over the direction his life has taken.  The people he grew up with are dead, and he’s having trouble fitting into the modern age.  Cap’s actually quite melancholy here.  He seems unable to let go of his past life, which gives newbies like me some time to get filled in on his story.  More importantly, he’s struggling with his growing disillusionment with SHIELD, which is exacerbated when Nick Furry (Samuel L. Jackson) shows him their latest creation.  It’s a trio of massive aircraft carriers designed to eliminate people who might be future threats.  Cap brings up some obvious moral problems (the people being killed haven’t actually done anything yet) and storms off, seemingly ready to quit.

            Of course, there’s no getting out that easy.  Furry is attacked by a mysterious hitman named the Winter Soldier.  Before dying, Furry entrusts Cap with some disturbing information:  SHIELD has been taken over from the inside.  This immediate threat kicks Cap out of his wallowing, and he teams up with Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Sam Wilson/The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) to find out who compromised SHIELD.

            From here, the movie becomes a series of alternating spy and action scenes, building a plot elaborate enough to keep your attention but failing to become very interesting.  The spy sequences keep the information flowing, but they are too often exposition-filled rants instead of believable character conversations.  One scene even commits the cardinal sin of allowing someone to wax poetic about the bad guy’s entire plan to Cap and Natasha.  Seemingly knowing how bad the scene is, the writers throw in a line to try to explain his ramble, but it’s too little too late.

            The action sequences fall into repetition, and are further marred by their wanton destruction.  Cap seems to prefer hand-to-hand combat, which is fun until you see his shield boomerang back to him for the fifth time and you realize that none of these folks are on his level.  His nemesis, the Winter Soldier, has a mechanical arm strong enough to level the fight, but even those battles become underwhelming after multiple encounters.  Prior to the big finish, the large fight scenes take place mostly on the streets of Washington D.C.  Cars flip, run into each other, and get shot to pieces, regardless of whether the drivers are participants or bystanders.  I normally don’t think about this too much, but I was oddly bothered by it in this movie.  There are non-public places to fight.

            The plot machinations leave little time for anything else, so once they kick in after the attack on Furry, the previously interesting characters devolve into stock superhero characters.  Early on, Natasha and Sam have gentle conversations with the troubled Cap, encouraging him to engage with the world and find some happiness.  Both characters are filled out with their own problems, and Natasha has a running joke with Cap about finding him a girlfriend.  It’s telling that the joke isn’t mentioned throughout the middle portion of the film.  Natasha’s playful attitude waters down into cheesy one-liners, Sam becomes the capable sidekick, and Cap’s preoccupation with his past disappears and reappears when the plot requires it.  If the character’s had been maintained better, it might have hidden the fact that the film is nothing more than a series of plot points.

            It’s possible that my issues with the characters are influenced by the fact that I’m not as familiar with them as other moviegoers.  I’ve given the film the benefit of the doubt on that one, but the repetitive middle section and poor writing is inexcusable.  The films mostly concerned with its jumble of escalating set pieces, but it does try to add in some ideas about our society and its use of technology.  In the end, “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier” is only an average summer blockbuster, just released a little earlier than usual.

Other Notes (Ridiculous Action Sequence Version):

Ø  At one point, I thought I saw the Winter Soldier toss up a knife, punch Cap, catch the knife, and continue fighting.  It was moving too fast to tell for sure.  So why would you do that if the audience can barely see it?

Ø  None of the glass that Cap and the Winter Soldier stands on breaks while the ship crashes, except for that one piece that allows Cap to dramatically toss his shield away.

Ø  Sam outruns a crashing ship.  To make it worse, at one point he rolls over a desk and you can clearly see him stop to get up, but still the ship doesn’t catch up to him.

Ø  The Winter Soldier blocks gunfire with his mechanical arm.  An arm isn’t wide enough to do that.  Also, have they not heard of ricochet?  The way an arm curves, he would be likely to block the bullets right up into his face.

Other Notes (Normal Version):

Ø  Yes, I spotted Stan Lee.