Post Avengers Syndrome

Post Avengers Syndrome

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

The Avengers

Iron Man 3

Thor: The Dark World

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

and Guardians Of The Galaxy

Before we get on with the reviews, I wanted to highlight a decision that I'm in the process of making, namely which film will be my first Full Education. I'm not going to reveal what it is because it's still not fully decided and I'd like it to be a surprise. However, you may start to notice similarities in the reviews, be that the same directors, actors, writers or genre of film making regular appearances. This is all in the name of focus and though it may risk alienating some people if the types of films that they like aren't being covered, I feel it's essential if I ever want to get to a Full Education. On with the reviews…

Since 2012, there's been a problem for me when it comes to Marvel films, namely that most of them feel like the unimportant siblings of The Avengers. Though a lot of them have focussed on members of that group, it all feels slightly less epic when they're not together. The question is: could any of them move beyond this? Naturally, we need to start at the beginning.

This may be coming from a fan of just about anything Joss Whedon decides to do (The Cabin In The Woods notwithstanding), but whoever decided upon Whedon as the choice to helm The Avengers really does deserve some sort of medal, commemorative plate or general acknowledgment. The biggest hurdle was bringing together all of these characters and not pushing any into the shadows. Naturally, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk would be taking on the bulk of the duties, but if the likes of Black Widow and Hawkeye were to appear credible hanging with these guys, then they not only needed similar screen time, they actually needed more development. Whedon is a master at this, having previously dealt with huge casts and always giving each character space to grow. Therefore, The Avengers is familiar territory for the director, but he still shows some development as a writer. It's been a previous criticism that you can tell a Joss Whedon character from a mile off, because they all sound the same and he dispels that. Each character had it's own identity establish going into the film and instead of turning them into something resembling his vision, he simply adapts his style to suit what's already there. Robert Downey Jr. excels as he always does when playing Iron Man, while Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Chris Evans as Captain America gain ground and become more interesting as a result of a better script. His biggest success though is with The Hulk, as some much needed humour makes it's way into the character. Bruce Banner has now now accepted his fate, resulting in some accrued sardonicism that removes him from the overly serious nature of previous performance. These all combine with some fantastically choreographed action scenes and near-perfect pacing that masters that balance between action and conversation. The film isn't perfect though, notably letting itself down a bit when it comes to antagonism. Though Tom Hiddleston remains excellent as Loki and steals the scenes he is in, there is the necessity for more villains as a 6-on-1 fight between Loki and The Avengers wouldn't really work. Though Whedon wisely doesn't try and develop any more villains than he can handle, he does up the ante in the final act, unfortunately presenting us with some fairly soulless and characterless "Evils". They may look the part (one in particular is a real beast), but they never feel like a real threat and serve to overshadow Loki a bit too much. This isn't anywhere near enough to completely destroy the enjoyment, but it is redolent of Marvel's trademark explosive finale that feels lacking on the heart front. Still, as an event movie, The Avengers was a massive success beyond it's dominating box office.

FOUR out of five

Trevor Slattery. It's a name I can say that will mean nothing to anyone who hasn't seen Iron Man 3. It's also a name that I can't go into further detail about without resorting to spoilers. Suffice to say, once you've seen Iron Man 3, there's a strong chance that you won't forget the name and an even stronger chance that you'll wish you could. With the events of The Avengers having taken their toll on Tony Stark, he finds himself suffering from anxiety attacks, whilst a new villain emerges in the form of terrorist leader The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley straying even further into caricature). When things get personal (when doesn't it?), Stark puts himself firmly into the Mandarin's sights and, though there are no bodily fluids hitting fans, there are plenty of missiles making their way through windows. Iron Man 3 had to overcome the dreaded change of director that has befallen previous third instalments (Brett Ratner taking over the X-Men franchise is a notable example), but Shane Black is a much more reliable hand. Black's scripts for the good films in the Lethal Weapon franchise showed that he had a grasp on blending action and comedy and he also had history with Downey Jr. after directing him in the excellent Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. As a result, he proves himself a solid fit for the franchise and is neither better nor worse than previous helmsman Jon Favreau. The script is also fairly solid, with Stark's brilliant wit getting plenty of chances to show itself, but there are some really severe third act problems, with Slattery being chief amongst them. The final showdown is also a bit flat. It's all well and good for spectacle, but lacks that personal edge that made the likes of the first Iron Man's fight between Stark and Obadiah Stane so much easier to get invested in. Iron Man 3 is mostly good, at times great, with the missing Avengers being offset by the fact that Tony Stark really is the lifeblood of it all. However, as someone who liked Iron Man 2 more than a lot of others did, I have to hold this one up as the weakest of the three films.

THREE out of five

Thor: The Dark World doesn't have Shane Black on writing duties. Instead, Thor: The Dark World has Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (along with relative newcomer Christopher Yost), a pairing who previously demonstrated their deficiencies in the comedic department with the misjudged Pain & Gain. Here, it feels like they're trying to emulate Joss Whedon's style of writing and, though an effort to continue with the style of The Avengers is admirable, attempting to write like Whedon rarely works out unless you're the man himself. They occasionally hit a solid note of humour, but often this is down to the likes of Chris Hemsworth and, in particular, Tom Hiddleston's ability to sell the joke well. Their style also jars a bit with director Alan Taylor, who seems to be going for a darker edge, or rather is blatantly going for a darker edge through the persistent use of the word in both the title and the villains being called Dark Elves. An incredibly generic plot dogs this sequel from the beginning, revolving around chief villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his plot to destroy the universe, apparently forgetting to realise the state of homelessness this would leave him in. This all becomes a vehicle for as much interaction between Hemsworth and Hiddleston as possible, as they're forced to set aside their differences and join forces. It's a welcome pairing up in the sense of it distracting from the painful lack of chemistry between Hemsworth and Natalie Portman, but offers little more than an overused "can I trust my former enemy?" dynamic. The question here is whether these heroes can work outside of The Avengers and Thor doesn't really feel as though he can to me. His ignorance to the way in which people exist and behave on Earth has lost it's comedic bite and his grandiose speeches feel more than a little clichéd. All these issues could possibly be salvaged if it built towards a satisfying ending, but the explosiveness returns and Thor and Malekith's showdown gives Man Of Steel a run for it's money when it comes to men throwing each other through walls, albeit portals instead of walls. Thor: The Dark World isn't terrible and has it's defenders out there, but it lacks anything that's going to help it stick in the mind.

TWO out of five

It's curious to note that despite The Winter Soldier remaining far more entrenched within the world of The Avengers than either Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World, it still manages to feel the least consequential of any of them. The harshest, but most appropriate, criticism of it is that it's been castrated of any balls, guts or other asset that can be used as a metaphor for stating this film's notable aversion to risk. The film harkens back to the old style of shady government films, as it becomes apparent that not all is rosy within S.H.I.E.L.D. Their dealings and possible connections to a dangerous assassin know as (name check) the Winter Soldier suggest that their good guy status may not be quite so etched in stone. There's twists and turns aplenty in a way that suits the genre that it harkens back to, but most of these are either too neatly sewn up into a little package or get retconned as time progresses. By the end, things have changed, yet nothing feels particularly impactful or important to the grander narrative. There is one really notable positive here though and he goes by the name of Mr Robert Redford. As one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s senior officials, Alexander Pierce, Redford is brilliant. With the whole plot being based around the potential corruption of S.H.I.E.L.D., much of the intrigue falls upon Pierce and his loyalties and he has you believing every word he says, despite the fact that there's no guarantee of any of it's truth. When you do find his loyalties, it only gets better. Unfortunately, brilliant cannot be said of the Winter Soldier. A lot of it hinges on the twist of the character's identity being revealed and this is hurt by the fact that Westlife lyrics are less predictable. The problems don't stop there, as when the identity does get revealed, he feels far more of an afterthought than he should. His story is one that is designed to create intrigue for future instalments, but in being the least interesting part of it, it fails. Some solid fight scenes, Chris Evans' great performance and Markus and McFeely producing a much better script than The Dark World can't quite stop this from feeling a little bland and (here we go again) the explosive finale returns, but in a much bigger and much less involving way than any of the other films here. My score's going to seem harsh to a lot of people here, but this film bored me more than the first Captain America film and I wasn't the biggest fan of that to begin with.

TWO out of five

It's now 10 years since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 was in cinemas and if you don't really remember it, the hype was huge. In 2014 though, the hype felt dead and Marc Webb's second attempt at what was once Marvel's biggest filmic commodity managed to become the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. That doesn't mean it tanked, as the film still turned a healthy enough profit, but it still wasn't enough to avoid being seen as a disappointment. The reasons are not hard to find because there's loads of them. The biggest one though is that it just felt unimportant in contrast to the other films. The fact that it's distributed by Sony, instead of Disney, meant that the chances of it integrating into The Avengers were slim to bugger all and the notion of Green Goblin as the villain didn't feel that special because we'd already seen it. This isn't enough to make the film bad and, in all fairness, it isn't bad. There's some nice moments: the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey remains as well-handled as it was in the first film and it has far more gutsiness when it comes to taking risks. It's all dogged down though by a notable failure to learn from past mistakes. The problems with Spider-Man 3 were many, but the biggest was an overabundance of characters, particularly villains, which led to Venom getting treated like an absolute afterthought. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also suffers from this in a way that's pretty unforgivable. The first half introduces Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon well and his transformation into Electro brings about a motive that actually feels kind of fresh. Pathos is something we're used to from the villains of Spider-Man, but Electro's is a different one, fuelled by no sort of professional ambition, but instead just the desire to be noticed. Foxx's usual place in confident characters is stripped away in a manner that some might find a little cartoonish, but is certainly leaps and bounds above Rhys Ifans turn as villain in the previous film. Halfway through though, they remove any real sense of threat to the character and rather than building him back up over time, he appears sporadically and takes second place to Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborne. DeHaan is a mixed bag. As Osborne, he's pretty good, but his take on the Green Goblin is more than a little hammy. In fact, I appear to disagree with almost everyone on this, as I was unimpressed with DeHaan, but actually quite liked Jamie Foxx. By the time we get to the final fight, there is too much focus on a now unimportant feeling Electro and Goblin no longer feels an appealing prospect. These focus shifts dog the film throughout and leave a sour note on what is otherwise a fairly enjoyable entry. It is very easy to see why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 didn't do as well as hoped, but it ranks for me at the same level as The Amazing Spider-Man. Given that loads seemed to hate that too, it must just be me being anomalous.

THREE out of five

On the flip side of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 going lower than expectations, it's fairly safe to say that Guardians Of The Galaxy might have just exceeded them… slightly. It's also made me look foolish since I was fairly adamant it was going to be rubbish. How's this for a complete 180: I genuinely believe that Guardians Of The Galaxy is better than The Avengers. In much the same way as The Avengers, it's highest priority is a focus on the heroes. The none-more rebellious grouping of Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket and the now legendary Groot represent a breath of fresh air in their rebellion which isn't necessarily tempered by a good soul. These guys are in it for the money, their own personal gain or both, caring little for the bigger picture or the others around them and that's what makes them so damn cool. Chris Pratt proves himself (and then some) as a leading man, as his past in comedy combines with a believable frame to make him a hero, while Zoe Saldana plays it fairly straight, but pulls off some skilful deadpanning. In the voice roles, Bradley Cooper is hilarious as Rocket and you can make all the jokes you like about Vin Diesel voicing a monosyllabic chunk of wood, but the man manages to elicit far more emotion and complexity from the three simple words 'I Am Groot' than should be humanly possible. What I can't believe I'm about to say though is that the real star is Dave Bautista. This isn't some snobbish belief that wrestlers can't act (I'm an unashamed wrestling fan), but if you told me that Big Dave would prove himself with quite as much comic brilliance as he does here, I would have laughed in your face. I'm fairly certain that the Kickboxer remake will knock him down a peg or two, but if it means more Drax, I'm all for it. As director/co-writer, James Gunn also proves himself to be a much bigger asset that I thought he would be (of his previous films, I've only seen Slither and I hated it). Establishing his own sense of humour which permeates as a sort of intelligent daftness helps give the Guardians a unique edge and while there's still some similarities that help define this as a Marvel film (precede finale with the word explosive), most of the time this is it's own beast. There are, however, some flaws. The villains are one. Lee Pace's chief antagonist, Ronan The Accuser is every bit as bland as he is a legitimate badass and Karen Gillan's Nebula is a solid take that gets a little too short-changed. It also seems rather pointless to bring in acting legends such as Glenn Close, only to give them next to nothing to do, but these are gripes that are pretty much offset by just how much fun it is being with the heroes of the piece. Here's something you don't hear me say often: when I said Guardians Of The Galaxy was going to be crap, I was wrong.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (9th October)

It's Grimm up North