The Avengers (2012)

Continuity. It is the key to Marvel’s long-term film strategy. It’s also the reason I got turned off to the Marvel universe after Iron Man 2 came out. Spending  a lot of valuable screen time setting up characters, situations and plot threads that won’t be satisfied for a couple of years makes for a larger film experience I’m just not interested in having. Therefore, I haven’t seen Thor or Captain American: The First Avenger.

I think this might be why I find the first thirty minutes of this film trying. There’s this cube that promises perpetual energy but also makes interplanetary portals and then this guy called Loki (Tom Hiddleston) shows up through this portal and starts attacking everyone and steals the cube and they’ve got to get the cube back and that’s why Samuel L. Jackson decides to retry the Avengers initiative.

The opening act reminds me why I’ve never gotten into any superhero universe in any real depth: it’s just too convoluted for me. Who is Loki? What is his plan? What is this cube? Where did it come from? How is Captain America (Chris Evans) here? Afterwards, my younger brother gave me the high points of the Marvel film universe, which retroactively made the first act make sense, but in the moment, the film did a terrible job of explaining what it all means.

This leads me to believe that this act, which primarily serves to introduce these elements to people like me who haven’t seen the first two films, fails. Here’s what you do instead: Opening scene: Loki comes through cube portal, steals cube, and flees. Second scene: introduce Avengers in montage, assemble them and then explain what the crap is going on. Also, give Loki a plan that makes sense, one that doesn’t make it clear that even if he succeeds, he fails.

Once the Avengers are together, and Samuel L. Jackson lays down the situation and the stakes the film hits the ground running. Instead there’s this whole elongated sequence where Loki has to steal this super rare metal to cool the cube so he can open a portal or something. It’s stupid. It makes no sense. It wastes time. It’s the kind of convoluted garbage that makes people scoff at superhero stories.

The film gets into gear when Loki starts getting into The Avengers’ heads and turning them against each other. And director/screenwriter Joss Whedon is able to so effortlessly tease out these conflicts naturally. The improvisational, worry about the consequences later, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) buts heads with Boy Scout, by the book Captain America. Likewise, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) soon discovers shady elements of S.H.I.E.L.D. that make him angry.

It’s also a great critique of the egos at work in the superhero genre. Whedon recognizes that all these characters are on some sort of ego trip and uses that to call into question how self-sacrificing these heroes really are. Some certainly are more admirable than others, but Whedon brings out the worst in them in order to make a compelling ensemble piece.

And, this being Whedon, there’s got to be some critiques of power. S.H.I.E.L.D., the agency that brings the Avengers together, has its own ulterior motives a play. Samuel L. Jackson, who up to this point has been a cool dude with an eye-patch, becomes a subtle manipulator, attempting to pull all the strings and hold all the right cards to get what he wants. On the other side, Loki is playing mindgames with the Avengers, pitting them against each other to give him the time he needs to launch his plans. The Avengers become pawns in a chess game with a picture much larger than any of them suspect.

Whedon also demonstrates his great comedic sensibility. Besides a lot of jokes being clever and witty wordplays and references, there are a handful of great visual gags. Whedon isn’t afraid to make a joke or two that requires the audience to connect a couple of dots, and the payoff is all the more satisfying. Also, there’s a hilarious, show-stealing cameo from an actor I never expected to see in a Marvel film.

The action in the film is passable. As great of a writer as Whedon is, he’s doesn’t have the best action sensibilities. The sequences aren’t as incoherent as some action flicks these days, but more than a few fights are spatially difficult to trace, especially when he starts intercutting between several different fights. Also, a lot of the action sequences are a bit too straightforward and simple.

There is one great action shot late in the film where the camera transitions through Avengers amidst the final battle, sweeping from character to character elegantly and effortlessly. While it’s been argued CGI dictate the need to have so many edits, or to obscure parts of images in order to cut down on rendering, this demonstrates that there are some fantastic things you can do with CGI without relying on editing as a cover.

Joss Whedon hasn’t redeemed the Marvel universe for me, there are certain characters I don’t think would work for me in their own movie (*cough* Captain America *cough*), and Loki’s plan is pretty stupid, but he’s made the first Marvel film I’ve enjoyed in years. For now, I’m still holding to The Cabin in the Woods as Whedon’s best effort of 2012, mostly because Goddard is a better director than him, but The Avengers is a solid superhero outing after a deluge of terrible and mediocre superhero flicks.

© 2012 James Blake Ewing

This entry was posted in Review and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Avengers (2012)

  1. Sam Fragoso says:

    One of my major disagreements with you here is this: “As great of a writer Whedon is, he’s doesn’t have the best action sensibilities”.

    I don’t like to compare anything to “the best” (mainly because I don’t know what the hell the best is), but the action sequences are mostly riveting, well staged, and spatially fluent. And criticizing the simplicity of an action just seems odd to me. Firstly because there’re more than a few complex action sequences, and secondly one of your major backlashes against the film is the “convoluted” nature of it. Perplexity is neither good in screenwriting, or action sequences.

    What I do agree with is that there seems to be just too much required prerequisite information for this film. That’s something I pointed out in my review – having to watch 5 films (Hulk, CPT America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2) just seems ridiculous. Whedon could’ve done a better job laying it all out.

    Anyway, much more positive than I would’ve expected.

    Peace my man.

    • Hum, well it’s not backlash to find a film too convoluted when you first see it.

      Also, there are action scenes where I can point out editing that spatially makes no sense whatsoever. Like the first scene with Black Widow. There’s as shot where she slams into a guy face first while still in the chair. In the next shot, she’s with her back to him and she slams the back leg of the chair into his foot.

      And also, another scene with Black Widow that doesn’t make sense is when she’s running away from Hulk. The camera is constantly repositioning where they are in relation to one another that it becomes super complicated to follow who is where.

      It’s moments like those that demonstrate that I don’t think Whedon has a strong action sensibility. Two recent films that do action superbly are Ghost Protocol and The Adventures of Tintin. Both have complex action, often simultaneous action, but both effortlessly allow the audience to follow every single detail of the action with ease. It flows elegantly and effortlessly.

      It doesn’t bug me a lot in The Avengers because it’s not a frequent problem, but it’s enough of the problem that I have a problem with anyone calling this a great action film because the action isn’t technically proficient.

      I think a lot of people have lowered their expectations for what constitutes good action after being overwhelmed by the shaky cam movement of action. Not having a shaky camera does not automatically make a film have great action, it’s gotta do more than that. And The Avengers doesn’t do all that much more.

  2. SJHoneywell says:

    I said it in my review, I’ll say it here. If the one-on-one fights were filmed like martial arts movies, the effect would be to allow us to really see the action with no detraction. Think of seeing the Hulk chasing Black Widow scene at the distance we get and the camera we get for the “I know Kung Fu” fight in The Matrix. We’d see every bit of the scene and every bit of the action with no loss of excitement. Pull the damn camera back. When someone throws a kick, I want to see the kick, not just the foot and the impact.

    I’m with you on this. It’s the most common complaint I have about fighting scenes in many films, and no different in this one.

    • The Hulk, Black Widow scene is probably the most egregious offender. I also think the first Black Widow scene where she finds the Russian mobsters has the same issue. Action is best in medium to wide shots. Too many shots that are too close to where the action is happening.

  3. Sam Fragoso says:

    Have either of you seen THE RAID: REDEMPTION?

    Because the action sequences in that film are fluent and technically proficient.

  4. Castor says:

    Totally agree about your final assessment. The future is still pretty bleak for comic book movies, aside from Whedon helming the sequel. I really haven’t liked a comic book movie pretty much since Iron Man so this was a big breath of fresh air.

  5. Pingback: For Your Consideration: Best Reviewer | Fogs' Movie Reviews

Leave a Reply