The following reviews contain spoilers.
The Avengers
The Script
Let's go ahead and get this out of the way. There are some actors who can pull off Whedonspeak. There are some who cannot. Samuel L. Jackson cannot.
The Avengers opens up with him giving a corny technology gobbly-gook between Maria Hill and, Lord, is it difficult to take seriously. However, the script, itself, might be perfect. As far as pacing, exposition, character development, and character motivation, Joss Whedon's penning of
The Avengers is a real prize winner, never being condescending to an audience of what he knows is fans and delivering a full frontal assault on that revelation. Funny, smart, and sometimes emotionally stunning (Tony calling Pepper, only to have her not pick up?), the script allows the actors to tell the story in a complete, fulfilling way. The battles are battles, trimmed with excitement and anticipation, and the war is a delivery of team-ups and heroics desperately needed to be seen to believed.
The Actors
With this film, the leads need to snap, krackle, and pop, rather than fight for the different ideals they stand for. Instead of getting tied up in the spotlight of "Here's another movie for my character," everyone surrenders to becoming the team the movie presents. Looking at the changes in performance to past films (Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson), to remaining consistent with confidence (Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans), to experimenting and creating a new, working character with numerous levels (Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner), each actor packs their own punch. However, it's Tom Hiddleston's Loki that takes the cake; providing an amusing, popping, and powerful Shakespearean-esque performance on par with any of the theatrical greats. His ability to work with a script that does not allow for a regular quid-pro-quo conversation with the rest of the cast (save Thor) is more a testament to his skills as an actor than anything else.
The Direction
While Joss Whedon is the creme de la creme of screenwriters in Hollywood (he's having a pretty good year with this and
The Cabin in the Woods), he still has a lot to learn as a director. His visual eye is effective, but not to an extensive canvas. The smaller the screen, the better. The action in
The Avengers delivers, but the range in shot framing is nothing extraordinary, border-lining on average. What he does do, though, is pay attention to the details in every scene, giving the framing and set up to every conversation the necessary spark to be more theatrical (and let's be honest,
The Avengers is incredibly theatrical) in nature.
Overall Impact
The Avengers delivers in all respects, to comic fans and non-readers alike. It's problems are small, its explosions are loud, and its costumes are bright and shiny; and its all for the better. At the end of the day,
The Avengers doesn't make promises it can't keep, and when it does keep them, the guy next to you in the theater has spilled his sanity all over you because of it.
Film Rating:
8/10
CBM Rating:
10/10
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Script
The Amazing Spider-Man's script is a difficult one to talk about. It never really seems stable
considering all the heavy cuts made to the movie. Its pacing is dizzying, throwing us from comedy to drama to comedy (after Peter's outburst at Uncle Ben, he shatters the front door. Half of my audience laughed, the other just kind of sat there awkwardly) and leaving us feeling rather unbalanced sometimes. That, and with "Who Am I?" the theme being constantly thrown in our faces ("Are you having trouble finding yourself?" "There is only one story and that's 'Who Am I.'") the script sometimes becomes overbearing and more of an effort to listen to. However, the script also presents itself with bright moments. The script feels very natural in delivery (the confrontations of Peter with almost any character in the movie sound genuine both in spoken and written form) and allows for a greater evolution in Peter as a teenager through what is unsaid. That's how you know a movie is good. When what's left unsaid is what resonates, then the movie's done a fantastic job.
The Actors
While Andrew Garfield's performance is being universally praised, he's really only the actor who gives a remarkably sharp performance. Denis Leary's Captain Stacy comes close, but his character becomes too muddled in the affairs of being a necessary obstacle to Peter when it comes to him dating Gwen and being Spider-Man. Emma Stone is a nice Gwen Stacy, bringing a relevance and warmth to the character, but she never strays far from giving an "Emma Stone" performance. If anything, she's merely turned down her character from
Easy A or replicated her character from
Zombieland. The story also fails to give really any development to their relationship whatsoever, allowing the two to fall in love on the pretenses that neither of them know hardly anything about each other (aside from Stacy's family and that Peter is Spider-Man) but still have a fight to be together before the credits roll.
Sally Field and Martin Sheen are fine, but only the latter is really given moments to play with. If you've seen Field in her other films, you know she's a damn good actress, but her only place in this movie is to wait at home for Peter and worry. She plays it well, but could be given a little more to do.
Rhys Ifans is another actor lost in what was probably just a movie too heavily cut. His performance shines, but he's too busy going through the classic "have to become a villain" routine to be identifiable. I understand we're supposed to sympathize with the fact that he's lost his arm, but that's an issue most people cannot
empathize with. With Peter, we get more background and story to help us build up a relationship, but we get nothing but the "lost arm" subplot with Curt Connors.
Oh. A movie finally utilizes Stan Lee correctly.
The Direction
Marc Webb is no visionary, but he's also fairly new to the cinematic game. That being said, maybe he wasn't the best choice to helm a Spider-Man flick. The only action sequence worth noting is the one in the school and for a Spider-Man movie, that's just not going to cut it. However, he's got a real talent for providing a romantic shot in the film. The scene where Gwen tends to Peter's wounds and they share a beautiful kiss is pitch-perfect. It's given time, grace, and effectiveness, making it one of the (if this is possible) subtlest stand out scenes in the movie. Webb seems to understand subtly quite well, and it will be a real treat to see him evolve with that. If Webb works on his capitalization of a scene, such as the sewer battle between Spider-Man and Lizard (how is it possible that Spidey making the web and waiting is more exciting and suspenseful than the actual fight?), then we can expect some truly fantastic work from him. Webb has the potential to be the next David Fincher, he merely just needs the time to get there.
My biggest problem is that
The Amazing Spider-Man didn't feel like a Spider-Man movie. I also felt like there was more of a story to tell within this first film (I know, they're "expanding things for a trilogy," but that's no excuse for a heavily cut film. You don't cut things last minute to make your other movies work; that's the challenge of a sequel. Tell a complete story.), which leaves me wondering how I would have felt had I gotten the director's cut. The movie is fine. It works. There are no issues in it that would--wait. The editing. The editing is atrocious. Okay, that's really the only thing, and you'll only notice it if you're used to working with film editing. Aside from that, you shouldn't be angry with your time spent in the theater.
Film Rating:
7/10
CBM Rating:
6.5/10
The Dark Knight Rises
The Script
Let's go ahead and get this out of the way, too. I've never really enjoyed Nolan as a screenwriter. I think his writing is too presentational, too clunky, and too unnatural to be enjoyable. And then 2008 came around and he threw
The Dark Knight in my face. The weird thing is, Nolan's writing style didn't change whatsoever, he just found a character that fits and flirts with that style so well that it becomes necessary. The Joker. And, man, did it work. You could listen to the Joker rattle off a monologue about chaos, or a new world order, or an improvised scheme all day long. And while that's a testament to the late Heath Ledger's acting ability, it's also knowing how to utilize your weaknesses and turn them into strengths. The problem is, Alfred, Selina Kyle, Miranda Tate, and John Blake are not the Joker.
The Dark Knight Rises's characters say almost exactly what they want to say every time they speak, and they say it in bulk. Selina Kyle's conversation with Bruce while they dance is more or less "Ideal, ideal, foreboding veiled threat, personal ideal, veiled threat" and then she leaves. It seems that almost every time Alfred speaks to Bruce in this movie, he has a new story to tell. One about the Lazarus Pit or one about his vacations to France (after he told his France story, my friend at the premiere of the movie leaned over and said, "Gee, I wonder where the last scene of the movie will take place?") and it makes Alfred feel like nothing more than a plot device. It isn't until the great Michael Caine breaks down pleading with Bruce that you really hit an emotional stronghold in the film worth recognizing. But then, Alfred leaves.
But I don't think anything took me out of the movie more than Miranda Tate's final turn as Talia, stabbing Bruce and then revealing
every single detail about the twist in a three minute span. These moments really surprised me, because Nolan's ability to leave things understood but unsaid in
The Dark Knight was top-notch.
To conclude that point, I feel that characters should not approach, state their philosophies and intentions with a witty remark, and then vanish, only to be seen again going through the motions a character would go through to obtain a formulated goal. Actions speak louder than words.
However, Nolan does a phenomenal job (improving greatly over
Batman Begins in this respect) with the pacing of this film. Rolling in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, a movie has never felt faster. Kudos for passing the butt-shift test, Mr. Nolan.
The Actors
One thing you can't deny, though, is that everyone in this film is in top form. Hathaway is slimy, slippery, and sexy. Her Selina Kyle is quite effective, quick, and fun despite all the hate around her portrayal of Catwoman before the film came out. Oldman brings his A-game back to portraying Gordon, bringing with him a nice, well-rounded Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Tom Hardy is a fantastic Bane, bone-crunchingly superior than Ra's Al Ghul. His deliveries are always splendid, even though the mixing for his voice (at three times the volume than everything else) did take me out of the movie a few times. Marion Cotillard might be one of my favorite working actresses today, but the film never uses her to her full potential. You want to see that, check out
Public Enemies or her breathtaking role in
La Vie en Rose.
But it's Bale and Caine that really shine. Christian Bale finally gets to take his time with Bruce Wayne in this go-around, and he takes his time, fully immersed in the misery, and yet, half-charm of Wayne. Caine's a master actor, and he pulls tears like none other. But anyone could cry. Caine, however, is genuine.
The Direction
This is where Nolan plays his hand. Nolan's an ingenious filmmaker for particularly this reason: he's practical. If you're wondering if his Dark Knight Trilogy will hold up fifty years from now, the answer is that it will. Because he uses practicality. His stunts are practical and real, leaving his films to stand the test of time.
Nolan also makes good use of his visual eye, as he and cinematographer Wally Pfister make perfect use of the large canvas. They understand light and its ties to theme. They understand the relevancy of the framing of a shot, and because of that, everything at a distance looks pitch-perfect.
My only complaint with Nolan's direction is that he doesn't deliver an action scene to my liking. Even with the all-out war that takes place within the confines of the film, it seems that Batman and Bane merely share haymakers and knees to the chest (aside from a brief fury-frenzy from Bane that does look fantastic). And I will say that the reading of
A Tale of Two Cities at Bruce's grave was a bit spoonfed, in my opinion.
Overall Impact
I think TDKR will either be everyone's favorite or least favorite in the trilogy. I know that, for me, I welcomed the film whole-heartedly and expected it to be good. However, I like BB and TDK equally, and that leaves
Rises last on my list. But let me tell you, it's still a film to be reckoned with.
Film Rating:
8/10
CBM Rating:
9/10
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
The Script
Ghost Rider is never going to be easy to translate to screen. He's not the world's most redeemable character in terms of morals, and unless you go all out with him, he's senselessly boring. But you can't overdo his methods and make him too much a villain, because that goes against what his character is all about. This script does nothing to progress the character or the characters in supporting roles. It's full of meaningless plot-banter, cheap throw-away lines, and runs at a mercifully short 95 minutes. It's a script that is so blase and uninspired that it's really beyond dissecting.
The Actors
Say what you want about Nicolas Cage (I'll say that I love the guy, despite his inability to pick fantastic scripts recently), but you can't say he's a "bad" actor. To further the point, the man is the only actor who has invented a new genre
of acting. He's a man who, after receiving his Academy Award in 1997, acts for fun. And he loves Johnny Blaze. He's obviously got a real passion to play the character and despite what the script and directors are telling him to do, he loves being a part of the Ghost Rider universe. You can only do so much with so little, though.
Idris Elba, prances about, being as good as a movie like this will allow, without being anything more than a formulaic movie character guide; there to show up, speak some "wisdom," and help out when the script takes an even murkier turn.
The rest of the actors are just there. Trying to be menacing to hilarious effects, trying to pull tears in scenes when they're scared, and just all out trying without having any fun. And it shows that it's acting. Which means it's bad acting. GR:SoV is not a self-aware film, but because of the majority of the cast, it plays like a parody of the first film to a more extreme level.
The Direction
It feels like there isn't any. The Neveldine/Taylor duo sound perfect on paper with their record of hot-blast, chaotic merry-go-round pictures, but as we've come to see, they're more interested in getting "cool shots" (and there are a few) than developing any kind of worthwhile story. It seems that they've become less than directors and more glorified cameramen, leaping off cliffs with their stunt doubles and snapping some sweet looking frames. I respect their vision, but I wonder why it is so limited to framing.
There are also points in the movie where it feels like they didn't even shoot enough footage to gain a cinematic release. The film randomly turns into an animated spectacle, and sometimes it even gives up on that. It shifts into what feels like a PowerPoint presentation by a kid in your class who thinks that calling Jerry Springer the manifestation of evil (on par with Hitler) is a joke that will bring down the house.
Overall Impact
A forgettable, short ride. If anything, it's watchable merely to see Cage talk about peeing fire, having "crazy attacks" during an interrogation scene, and a decently clever nod to the fact that Twinkies don't go bad. Beyond that, it's an atrocious roller coaster of boredom and half-action that makes you wish watching the movie was a sin, so that the Ghost Rider would come put you out of your misery.
Film Rating:
3/10
Comic Book Movie Rating:
3/10
Don't agree with me? That's a-okay! I'm interested to hear your thoughts. If you think some of my reasoning is nonsensical or off-base, I welcome the discussion. If you'd like to read my screenplays on Daredevil, you can check them out here:
The Man Without Fear!
Speak of the Devil