The Avengers (2012) Review

By: T.J. “What’s your secret? Mellow jazz? Bongo drums? Huge bag of weed?” Mulligan

After 5 years of individual cinematic releases and plenty of word-of-mouth hype as build-up The Avengers has finally hit theaters.  Actually, hit may be a bit of an understatement.  The thing has EXPLODED into theaters, shattering box office records and receiving critical praise for a comic book-based movie normally reserved for the likes of Christopher Nolan and company.  I’ll admit, I saw this on opening day.  I’ve seen it again since.  I’ve wanted to watch it practically everyday since I first saw it, but I couldn’t bring myself to finding the words to describe it here.  The problem was that I wanted to review it like I typically review all movies and this is no typical movie. As mentioned above this thing has made insane amounts of money - as of press time it has made over (raises pinky to lip) ONE BILLION DOLLARS worldwide - so a review in which I try to convince people to go see it seems irrelevant.  People have gone, people are going, people have plans to go.  This will likely become to most watched movie of all time without any help from me.  Instead, I wrote down a couple of notes, both positive and negative, right after watching it the first time and will simply post them here with a little elaboration.

Warning: possible minor spoilers ahead.

Positives:
Fun at the Movies:  As I’ve previously mentioned in past reviews, the biggest seller for a film to me is that it’s fun.  I understand that film is art and that sometimes watching a guy eat a sandwich for twenty minutes can deeply express the lament of the director at the time and blah, blah, blah, but when I’m putting down money to see a film, I want to at least be entertained by it.  Films should tell stories, they should make the audience think, they should stick with them even after the house lights come up but, even if the subject matter is depressing as fuck, they should be fun to watch.  This film has that aspect down, in spades.

Comic book mise-en-scene:  I can’t really say that this film broke the mold or anything when it comes to cinematography in a comics-based film, but it does have the look down pat.  From the ramped-up action sequences down to the low-key conversational moments, almost any frame of this picture could be traced out and filled in with ink and fit right in to any comic.  The color, the lighting, the costumes all come together nicely to give this film a fantastic look and feel.

Effects:  Feel how you want about the movie itself, but some have claimed that last year’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon set a new bar for CGI effects in movies.  If it was set in that film then The Avengers at least meets it if not exceeds it.  Fuck believing that a man can fly, this film makes you believe that an entire air carrier can fly.  And poor New York City: at least your partial destruction once again on film looked prettier than ever.

Dispersion of action between characters and Setting up for individual and group sequels:  The ambitious nature of this movie stems from the fact that, while not the first ensemble super hero movie, it is the first to feature such high profile heroes.  Let’s face it, at least four of the characters making up this iteration of The Avengers are well known enough to warrant getting their own films before this film was even made.  With so much star power packed into only one flick the idea of each character getting their fair share of screen time seems daunting - but by God if they didn’t pull it off.  Once each character is properly introduced the action moves in such a way that each person has their specific duty and purpose, allowing them their time to shine before cutting to the next character, who is treated equally.  Even when not engaged in the action sequences their individual stories are presented to the audience with deliberate care.  What’s more, this film doesn’t just leave off by setting up Avengers 2 (though it does that as well), it also leaves them all off to have their own individual adventures again, which no doubt will manifest onscreen (Iron Man 3, Thor 2 and CaptainAmerica 2 have already been announced).  This type of care in the script and onscreen is an investment for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it works well as such.

Joss Whedon:  Maybe this should be “Marvel hiring Joss Whedon,” but the fact remains that this man deserves a hell of a lot of credit.  His work on Firefly and Serenity proved that he knows how to work with ensemble casts, his work on Buffy proved that he knows how to mix action and story, and his seemingly constant involvement in the world of comics - whether as a writer, director or fan - proves that he knows how delicate to treat material that already means so much to so many people.  There may have been some questions at first as to whether a man like him could handle something as massive as this, but, by now, I think they all may have been answered (one billion fold).

Negatives:
Walkie-talkie/Communication system:  From the point all of the Avengers are together for the first time on the flying carrier to the end of the movie, it seems they all can communicate with one another regardless of the distance of separation between them.  Now this makes since with Iron Man since his suit occasionally acts as a giant radio and he can seemingly disrupt or break into any communication system, even Captain America can get away with it since the helmet he wears in this film seems to have speakers near the ear section, but what about everyone else.  The carry on conversations through battles, over great distances, but no one else seems to have even a tiny hearing aid-like device in their ears.  Call it nit-picky, but that bugs me.  Some explanation, even a quick scene of each of them being handed something would have sufficed.  You don’t even need to really explain it, just have a random extra pass them out to everyone while Nick Fury is explaining something and show at least two of them put it in their ears. 

Lack of explanation for the Chitauri:  I get that keeping the identity of the man pulling the strings behind the attack by Loki and the Chitauri needs to remain a mystery, but the alien race, whose ultimate fate is simply to be fodder at the might of the Avengers, never gets a proper explanation.  My friend and cohort Joshua explained them to me as “the Foot Clan of the Marvel Universe” and that seems to be accurate outside of the fact that the Foot Clan has an explanation for their existence.  These guys seem simply to be a race made to fight and be destroyed.

The “new” Hulk:  Seeing the Avengers finally meet on screen, all together, after 5 films of investment is such a cool feeling, but it’s one that ultimately feels a little off.  This is due to Mark Ruffalo and his version of the Hulk.  Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. all continuing to work in their roles as Thor, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark respectively gives the film a real mash-up/important feel, but not having Edward Norton reprise his role from The Incredible Hulk is awkward, especially since the film is considered cannon and events from said film are referenced in this one.  Don’t get me wrong, I thought Ruffalo’s performance was pretty great and this version of the Hulk is equal parts intimidating and emotional (and even a little funny), but the weird feeling is one that I had trouble shaking the whole time.  Also, what’s with the fact that he can’t control “hulking out” in one instance and suddenly can in another.  It just goes to show that the character of the Hulk may prove to be the most difficult to ever properly bring to the screen.

All that said, this film is fantastic.  It deserves every bit of money it’s getting and will be hard to beat as one of the best films to see in theaters this year. 

I give The Avengers 5 (as if there was any question) shawarma sandwiches out of 5.

Hunger Games Review

By: Joshua “THAT’S MAHOGONY!” Richey

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from Hunger Games. I went to the midnight showing of it when it was first released and the entire parking lot to the theater was full. That never happens. I go to quite a few midnight showings for a lot of big blockbusters and not once has that happened. Walking into the theater was even crazier. The entire lobby was packed with more 14 year olds than a middle school pep rally. There were even cosplayers, and by cosplayers I mean girls in black yoga pants, brown work boots and pleather jackets…if this is to become a trend, I approve. I didn’t completely understand the appeal of this Hunger Game thingie. I still don’t. I wasn’t sure if this was the new Twilight or what. It seemed to have the same demographic as Twilight, yet my girlfriend —a girl that despises all things Twilight— reassured me that this most definitely was not the case. We shall see.

In an ominous future, the government televises an annual bloodbath for their citizens that involves taking two random children between the ages of 12 and 18, a boy and a girl from each of the twelve districts and putting them into a fight to the death reality show that’s known as the Hunger Games. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is a 16-year old resident of District 12, the poorest of the twelve districts. With her father’s passing and her mother mentally unstable, Katniss does what she can to look after her little sister, Prim (Willow Shields). During the Reaping, the annual event in which the district’s two Hunger Game competitors are chosen, Prim’s name is called. In an act of desperation to protect her little sister, Katniss volunteer’s to be District 12’s female representative in her place. Also chosen at District 12’s Reaping is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the male representative. Together, Katniss and Peeta are thrown into the Hunger Games with 22 other competitors and only one can come out alive.

Surprisingly, I wasn’t completely turned off by Hunger Games. It’s not a great film…I don’t think I’d voluntarily watch it again…but it’s not the cinematic abortion that I was expecting it to be. There are a number of things in the movie that really bother me: there’s an unnecessary love triangle that, at times, brings the film to a screeching halt; there’s some really poor CGI – which is odd because it’s a film the doesn’t require a whole lot of it; there’s a shaky camera during the action scenes that is so nauseating that you will think that Michael J. Fox was at the helm; and I’m not a fan of the presentation. By that I mean that the look and feel of the rich society is supposed to come off as Lady Gaga-like over the top but it ends up looking like that scene in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure where they go into the future and the council tells them to “be excellent to each other” while doing awkward air guitar.

Yet there are also a lot of good things going on in this film too; mainly the supporting cast. While Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson do a fine job, it’s the performances from Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci that you’ll find yourself remembering the most. Tucci’s role as futuristic Ruby Rod-meets-Ryan Seacrest is especially well done. The film is also surprisingly violent. It’s weird, despite the film being about kids killing kids…I wasn’t expecting there to be so much kids being killed by kids. A lot of it is uncomfortable to watch and I’m quite surprised that the film got a PG-13 rating.

Again, I wasn’t turned off by Hunger Games. Aside from the horrendous camera works and the annoying love triangle elements, I quite enjoyed the vast majority of it. The girlfriend tells me that love triangle plays a bigger part in the other two upcoming films, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt here.

I give The Hunger Games three squirrel hunting hotties out of 5.

The Artist (2011) Review

By: T.J. “Ruff… Ruff…” Mulligan

Sometimes, as the old saying goes, silence can speak volumes.  A parent’s scornful furrowing of their eyebrows can let their child know they are in trouble; a smile across the face of someone you haven’t seen in a while can let you know they’re happy to once again see you; a friend’s eyes swollen red from tears can trigger within you the knowledge that something has upset them; a lover’s tender embrace can make you feel the level of their affection.  Even people of different cultural backgrounds and who speak different languages can understand these silent cues.  These means of expression, while simplistic, are the bedrock of universal communication between people throughout the known world and are the earliest ways in which people told stories cinematically.  The Artist is a love letter to that bygone era, when the language of Hollywood was spoken with the body and the greatest form of expression was facial.

The Artist is the story of George Valentin (Jean Dejardin), a silent film actor at the top of his craft in 1927.  All his films are hits and all his premieres are attended by legions of adoring fans, one of which is aspiring actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo).  After the premiere of his latest film, Peppy, who is at the front of the crowd as George walks the carpet, bumps into him, which George takes very lightly, playfully posing with Peppy for the papparazi cameras.  When Peppy’s picture ends up on the cover of Variety it gets everyone in Tinseltown asking who she is.  This aspect, along with a little help from George, helps her get her foot in the door at the studio that employs George, Kinograph Studios.  Two years later the studio head, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), decides to do away with silent films in favor of the wave of the future, talkies.  This does not sit well with George who sees talkies as little more than a passing fad.  When this doesn’t end up being the case, though, it sends George’s career and personal life for a total loop.

Going into the film I was a little skeptical that the “silent film” aspect was little more than a gimmick to try and make an otherwise only okay film stand out from the pack.  While that is on display from time to time in this, it is never to the point of being overt.  This film is treated with such care to make sure that the story is never trumped by the form in which it is told.  Watching this film conjures up mental images of silent film juggernauts such as Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin, not only based on memories of their performances in similar pictures, but also displaying at least a little of what they must have felt when they saw the silent era die.  Despite the spattering of serious subject matter displayed on the screen, the lack of spoken dialogue and the score help to always provide at least an undertone of lightheartedness.  While that may not be the selling point of this picture, it is what will keep people coming back to watch it again and again.

I don’t think much needs to be said about the performances, which were stellar all around (I believe most of the main players have either won or been nominated for multiple acting honors), or the directing, which, again, was very well done, but I feel the need to point out the work of a relatively unsung group of people in the art department.  The sets in this film are fantastic, bringing the look of old Hollywood to life and giving the film as a whole a very vibrant feel.  Moreover, given the lack of dialogue, the sets themselves help tell the story.  Whether through something as subtle as a lighting change altering George’s shadow, or something as blatant as a prescient sign hanging in the background, Production Designer Laurence Bennett, Art Director Gregory S. Hooper and everyone in the art department deserve applause for helping to bolster the visual appeal of this film.

The Artist has garnered a lot of (much deserved) critical acclaim and while it may not be my favorite film of 2011, it is nice to see such kudos heaped on a film that isn’t so overtly dramatic or melancholic.

I give The Artist 4 John Goodmans psyched to be smoking indoors out of 5.