Avengers: Age of Ultron

How do you make a sequel to the third highest grossing film of all time, in a genre that has over-saturated the market, while maintaining global audience interest? Simple. You assemble the Avengers. And having Joss Whedon as the writer/director on your team doesn’t hurt.

Everyone knows about the Avengers by now. If you happen to have been hiding under a rock, the Avengers are the superhero team of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and Captain America (Chris Evans). Along with Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), they are the heroes There are a few rotating supporting heroes in the mix as well, but really too many to list. The 2012 spectacular shattered expectations and records to the box office tune of over $1.5 billion worldwide. In the film world, this creates a daunting task; the dreaded sequel. Look at James Cameron for example. He’s the mastermind behind two of the greatest sequels in film history (Aliens, Terminator 2), yet he’s still losing sleep over his Avatar sequels (which have grown to three films being written simultaneously by the way).

Challenge accepted. Joss Whedon is a genius. He has grown from a writer with a cult following (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly) to the man putting all of the moving parts together in the biggest film franchise in cinematic history. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; Marvel has knocked it out of the park with their vision, and will continue to do so for years.
Age of Ultron picks up where we left off in 2012. The Avengers are traveling the world protecting the innocent and fighting evil organizations bent on global domination. Enter the Maximov Twins, Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen). Quicksilver can move at lightning speed (not nearly as cool as the same character in X-Men: Days of Future Past), and Scarlet Witch can control minds with her powers. She gets inside Tony Stark’s mind and convinces him to create Ultron, an artificial intelligence superhero, supplanting the Avengers and making them unnecessary. It’s a very lazy and cynical move on Stark’s part, but shows the toll that saving the world can take on a man.

Enter Ultron. Voiced exquisitely by James Spader, the artificial intelligence takes robotic form and begins concluding that the true path to peace is through the elimination of humanity, and that needs to start with the Avengers. Makes sense to me. And a great summary for a purebred action film.

By way of dazzling special effects-laden action sequences, the Avengers create an A.I. ally of their own, and take on Ultron and his army of drones in a finale that would make Michael Bay blush.
Contrasting the sequel with the original, we get a look at the next generation of Avengers. New characters take on more visible roles, possibly sending some of the originals off to green pastures in the near future. We have more bantering between the members that is typical of Whedon’s style and the action remains fully kid-friendly.

The film plays it safe. Sticking to tried and true story arcs and character pathways. I don’t blame Whedon for keeping the tone light and not straying down the natural path of darkness that inevitably shows itself in so many sequels. He sticks to what works, likely the work of the overseers at the studio, but the action is the point. I know Whedon is capable of more, but I feel like he was held back, or he just got tired and lazy.

Nevertheless, the film will be a massive success. It will pick up where Furious 7’s record-shattering April box office draw left off, and spark the summer bonanza that in my opinion may make 2015 one for the records. Avengers: Age of Ultron is a lot of fun, and it paves the way for a multitude of potential directions for the future films. There are already no fewer than ten upcoming projects slated and/or in the can over the next five years, and this summer’s Ant Man will determine whether audiences are willing to take a leap away from the more well-known heroes. I say yes. I find myself growing tired of the big three (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America), but alas, I keep coming back for more, just like you will.

Not as good as the original, but sequels rarely are. See it for the marvelous visual effects. 7/10.

The Gunman

Sean Penn has been relatively quiet since his 2008 Best Actor Oscar-winning performance in Milk (his 2nd). He's been Mickey Cohen in the poorly executed and ill-titled Gangster Squad, had a pretty fantastic supporting role in the under-appreciated Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and he's sparked a relationship with Charlize Theron. He returns to the action genre in a big way. The 55 year old packed on some muscle to play Jim Terrier, a black-ops CIA former special forces yada yada yada. You know the drill by now. The Gunman is directed by Pierre Morel, of Taken fame, and the films have more in common than middle-aged bad-ass men trying to relive their youth.

Terrier is called upon to assassinate an official in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in what is intended to be a cerebral suspenseful sequence. Nearly a decade later, an older, wiser, buffer, and haunted Terrier is back in DRC doing humanitarian work, when he is targeted by a hit squad. He goes on the run, working his spy game trying to figure out who the hunter is and why he's the hunted. A man connected to the dark truths of global politics realizes that he can't outrun the sins of his past, and the people he once worked with (and for) won't let him escape. As the cat and mouse game plays out, we are treated to an elaborate bullfight finale scene that almost makes me long for John Woo's white doves.

I'm all for the lone gunman, ex special forces action thriller, but the Gunman straddles the line between genuine quality, and fluffy action. The character development is questionable at best, and it falls apart completely when his flaws are revealed. It's not for a lack of trying, and the cast is top shelf. Penn, Javier Bardem, Ray Winstone, and Idris Elba? With a decent script, this could have been either a great action film, or an awards-caliber artistic achievement. And consequently, because of the attempt on the director's part to achieve both, it's neither.

Idris Elba doesn't appear until the movie is nearly over, but his role could have been played by a B-lister (or C, or D...) and the film wouldn't have suffered a bit. Javier Bardem is another all too brief screen portrayal of wasted talent as Felix, one of Terrier's compatriots. Ever since No Country for Old Men and Skyfall, he has an aura about him, especially in the role of a villain. He isn't exactly the villain here, but would have benefited from a little bit more deception and guile. And a little more depth of character. There's a natural sinister affect that Javier has, but it isn't capitalized upon here.

The dialogue is wooden and forgettable, and the love story is clearly out of place even though it is at the epicenter of this debacle. This is the type of film that makes me wonder why I'm not a Hollywood screenwriter. And what's with the sunglasses, Sean? Is it just me, or are his choice of shades a bit too 1980's? It bothered me in Mystic River, and it bothers me in The Gunman. While we're on the subject of fashion, I think an ex-special forces black-ops CIA assassin trying not to be noticed probably wouldn't run around with a camouflage army backpack. It's a stupid detail, but if it was noticeable to me, it was probably noticeable to others. I'm just saying.

Even the shootouts and knife fights couldn't help The Gunman. The action is fine, and Penn has the chops of a bona fide middle-aged action star, as was clearly being advertised and demonstrated by the number of shirtless and close-up arm flexing scenes. But something was seriously missing. There was a moment before a certain action sequence that was squandered. Terrier is having a cliche prolonged pre-kill dialogue with one of those shadowy CIA ne'er-do-well types, and there is a dark, massive pool of water behind them. It's moments like this where your attention drifts away from the conversation or the imminent threat of death, and you begin to wonder what, if anything, is lurking in that water. Like something from a James Bond film, or the book that desperately needs to be adapted to film, Beat the Reaper. That is opportunity. The viewer wants more of that. I want more of that. Surprise me a little bit, Hollywood.

The Gunman fits in line with all of the Liam Neeson films of the last few years (Taken, Unknown, Taken 2, Non-Stop, A Walk Among the Tombstones, Taken 3, Run all Night). It's a newly converted middle aged action star burning high octane garbage with a story that was cranked out in a couple of hours, and given absolutely no polish or afterthought. Like putting premium gasoline into a 1981 Honda Accord hatchback. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I won't blame the gasoline for the car sucking. 3/10.

Good Kill

The war on terror has been shown on screen a lot lately, and heroically. The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, Lone Survivor, American Sniper to name a few notables. But Good Kill takes a more subdued approach. No more are there boots on the ground and valiant and enviable Navy SEALs running through the streets of Fallujah or the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Good Kill has a more forward-thinking approach to modern warfare.

Ethan Hawke plays Major Tom Egan, a veteran Air Force pilot who has been relegated to flying drones by no fault of his own. The demand for manned aerial vehicles has dried up, so he spends twelve hours a day in a converted shipping crate on a base in the Las Vegas desert. His wife, Molly (January Jones) is bored, but loyal, and the film wastes no time showing us the monotony and complete emotional detachment of his craft and life. He watches Taliban and civilian activity all day from half a world away until ordered to drop ordinance on targets that are conveniently dehumanized then forgotten. Eventually the violence takes a toll on his conscience, and he begins his inevitable spiral into self-abuse and sabotage.

Bruce Greenwood plays the company commander (General, Colonel, who cares) Jack Johns, who delivers emotionless speeches to new recruits and recites canned dialogue to Egan and the others. It's not much of a departure from any of his other roles of the last decade, but he serves as the middle-management authority who assumes responsibility for the kills. Of course, Egan is the one who pulls the trigger, so there is an interesting moral dilemma as to who is actually responsible for killing combatants and civilians, and whose hands are wiped clean. It's not so easy to decipher.

Ethan Hawke is good, but not great. This role was ripe for some moral ambiguity, but he spent too much of it stone-faced, too cool and calm to show his true feelings. The toll of consuming dozens of human lives each day would be legitimately haunting, and the point of the film is that he's a cool cucumber who just hits his threshold. It could have been done in a more dramatic fashion. January Jones is a typical military wife; Regretful of her decisions and lonely. She's way too attractive and pathetic to play this part, but it can be forgiven because she's such a small supporting role.

Writer/director Andrew Niccol has had some seriously great ideas, particularly 1998's The Truman Show (directed by Peter Weir). Good Kill is another great idea that just simply isn't

The brilliance of the film is the suspense inherent in the reality of the theatre of warfare. Drones, as Bruce Greenwood states, are here to stay. It's a completely logical approach to war, but it also diminishes the bravado and machismo. Video feeds from thousands of feet in the air, and precision missile strikes, makes it seem more of a video game and less tense. However, the video feed delays create a visceral tension, as they are the only connection to the reality of the permanence being conducted.

I really enjoyed the tension of the live video feeds of human targets. There was a sort of natural empathy for the innocents as well as the terrorists who were being hunted without a second thought. These were the moments captured that could have been capitalized. The rest of the film however, was nothing more than B-rated war-monger fodder.

Good Kill showcases the future of American military involvement in an ambitious way, but it ends up a bit too Hollywood. The intro music, and ending kill any good chance of success for the film (no pun intended). There needed to be a bit more character development mixed in with the well-done tension-filled video feeds. Additionally, the dialogue could have used some much-needed sprucing. I was really looking forward to this film, but was mostly disappointed. 5/10.

Furious 7

It’s always a little emotional to see an actor in their final role on the screen. Furious 7 faced the dilemma of whether it would be appropriate or insulting to push on with the juggernaut box office franchise given the untimely and ultimately ironic death of a beloved actor and cornerstone of the series. Hollywood is no stranger to posthumous praise, and although there will be no Oscars in Paul Walker’s future, the pre-credits memorial is one of the most touching I’ve ever seen in film.

The Fast and Furious franchise has found itself reaping a massive global success with a gross in excess of $2.4 billion for the first six installments. The seventh is set to rake in an estimated $130-140 million in the opening weekend alone, which sends a signal through the industry that people just can’t seem to get enough of high octane car chases, poorly thought-out stories, and wooden characters.

Right off the bat, you know what you’re getting with these films, and that’s the beauty of the experience. The film begins straight out of an MTV Spring Break music video mixed with a Mountain Dew commercial. Race Wars, the illegal street racing venue that started the whole F&F craze back in 2001 showcases women in bikinis, tricked out cars, and a gearhead brotherhood that fills the void of a desert. The Godfather of street racing, Dominic Torreto (Vin Diesel) leads an unlikely group of genius/fearless/combustion-engine-savvy individuals who favor themselves family over friends. Maybe that’s the intended appeal; inclusion, loyalty, bravery. The family includes Brian (Paul Walker) as the converted FBI agent/husband to Torretto’s sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster), Roman (Tyrese Gibson) as the intended comic relief, Tej (Ludacris) as the computer hacker, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) as Torretto’s wife, and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) as the newest addition, the DEA agent with a soft spot for family. The wild card is new addition, the dubious Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell), who never really tips his hand, and the bad guy, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) who is the pissed off brother of the bad guy from Furious 6. Oh, and a random appearance by Djimon Honsou as an African mercenary. Not sure where he came from or why.

Still with me? Furious 7 takes us from a hospital takeover to a mountainside car chase, to the streets of Tokyo, the skyscraping towers of Abu Dubai, and back to the familiar landscape of Los Angeles. Torretto and his family are trying to snag a piece of computer software called “God’s Eye” to help them find Shaw and settle the score. It’s a smorgasbord of locations, and each action sequence is more adrenalized than the last. The preposterousness builds to a crescendo as Dwayne Johnson shoots a helicopter out of the sky with a Gatlin gun, and a Predator drone blows up a parking garage in downtown LA with a missile. Yep, it’s that kind of movie. And it works.

Director James Wan has a resume steeped in horror (Saw, Insidious, the Conjuring) but takes on Furious 7 as if he were Michael Bay’s little brother. Burning rubber, twisted metal, and improbable sequences of cars parachuting out of planes, jumping from building to building, and outrunning crumbling garages just might become his hallmark. The action is absurd, and I loved it.

Let’s be clear about something. Vin Diesel can’t act his way out of a paper bag. He may as well have been repeating “I am Groot” over and over, and this film would have been none worse for it. The story was terrible, and the acting was pedestrian at best. This review has more flair than the script.

So why did I enjoy this film? Simple. Action. Light-hearted, old-fashioned, 1980’s style action. Weak story, dull characters, but pretty sweet cars and lots of squealing tires and explosions. The summer blockbuster season has begun. 8/10.

Get Hard

Buddy films have always had a place in Hollywood, and it has always come down to one thing: Chemistry. There has to be a complementary relationship. One is a slob, one is clean. One is uptight, one is crazy. One is rich and white, one is poor and black. But in the end, there has to be change and growth through their shared experiences to make it work. The mixed-racial buddy genre (Lethal Weapon, Men in Black, Beverly Hills Cop, White Men Can’t Jump, Trading Places, anything with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor) seems to be a perennial favorite. Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart surprisingly have strong chemistry, so you can’t fault them for trying.

Get Hard is the latest in this long line of buddy comedies, and it is every bit as irreverent and detestable as you might expect. Racial, homophobic and classist stereotypes are fodder for this feeble attempt at a humorous film. Millionaire stock mogul James King (Will Ferrell) is living the high life in Bel Air. He has a beautiful, gold-digging wife (Alison Brie), dozens of personal staff members (all racial minorities) tending to his every want and need, and a career just on the brink of superstardom, thanks to his upcoming nuptials to his boss’ daughter. Then it all falls apart. He is tried and convicted of securities fraud and embezzlement and is sentenced to ten years of hard time in San Quentin. Enter Darnell (Kevin Hart). Darnell is James’ car washer, and just wants a better life for his family. Because he’s the only black man that James knows, he is given an offer he can’t refuse, and begins training James for prison. Over the course of thirty days, the two of them fumble their way toward an unlikely friendship, with too many references to prison rape and “kiestering” to count.

I was expecting a bit more humor from writer/director Etan Cohen (Tropic Thunder, Idiocracy, Men in Black 3) but what I found was that the gags couldn’t transcend the story. Maybe it’s just me, but there isn’t anything funny about the prospect of prison. Not even if Will Ferrell, in his typical naïve, big galoot teddy bear self, is trying to sell its humor. Or if Kevin Hart is pretending to be an experienced convict, when he’s really a fast-talking family man without much spine or street cred. It’s almost a Cliché within a cliché of stereotypes.

On the bright side, Will Ferrell’s way of mincing cuss words with nonsense is entertaining as always, even if it’s blatantly contrived. And Kevin Hart is a brilliant comic who keeps growing in success through his jabber-jawed persona and whip-quick impressions. Someone take away his Red Bull, please. The two of them together in a different story would have been comedic gold. Unfortunately, the mood of Get Hard is just too heavy to enjoy the jokes, and the characters are far too one-dimensional.

Most people will see a Will Ferrell film simply for his natural comedic presence. He’s a bankable headliner, no doubt. Most of his films delve into the realm of raunchy, but he’s such a clown that it’s forgivable. This film, however, relies too heavily on the notoriously violent homosexual prison culture as its crutch, and that’s unfortunate.

Get hard could have gained enhancement from a focus on either comedy or prison, but not both. It moves along limply toward the inevitable happy ending that you know is coming but ultimately can’t possibly care about. 4/10.