An illustrious back story. An amazing director with a formidable pedigree. A writer with a proven track record in sci-fi and mystery genres. A star studded cast that basically comprises of who's hot in Hollywood right now. Forgive the pun but the stars were all set to align. Unfortunately, something was lacking and what could have been one of 2012's greatest films has unfortunately become just another good movie plagued by great expectations and poor characterisation.
Yes it is a good film, however it never quite lives up to the masterpiece it could have been like its sister 'Alien'. A story 30 years in the making, one that Ridley Scott always wanted and intended to tell, even to the point that he fought tooth and claw to keep the progenitor scene, featuring the now infamous 'Space Jockey', in the original Alien film. Now as I'm sure most people are now aware this film centres around the 'Space Jockey' species, now given the title of the 'Engineer's' and is effectively both a prequel, standalone accompaniment and tangent of 'Alien'. You don't need to have seen the 1979 masterpiece to enjoy 'Prometheus' but it adds depth and a micro amount of understanding and answers some of the questions posed within it. However the narrative does also pose as many questions as it answers. And potentially at times contradicts the answers it does give. And this is one of the flaws of the film, in that it tries to do much in a short amount of time. Does it answer the question of who the 'Engineer's are? Yes. Does it reveal where the 'Alien' comes from? Yes, but there are some contradictions. Does Noomi Rapace provide a substantial replacement for Sigourney Weaver? I'll leave you to answer that when you see the film.
The main letdown of this film is the lack of characterisation. The characters are all underdeveloped and very flat, with the perhaps (ironic) exception of one. There is very little development and explanation of the character's motives, they seem to act and react very much just to progress the narrative. The only character who feels real ironically is that if Michael Fassbender's David, the android. He is the only one who is consistently interesting to watch and gives the audience something to question as well as showing any real character progression. He has depths, motives, reasoning and is flawed, showcasing a more human nature than any of the others. Fassbender does an amazing job in portraying David, every look he gives and dialogue he utters can be second guessed and read into on so many different levels. I actively found myself watching him throughout the film, wether he was in the foreground or merely a part of a group scene, as he in my opinion was the absolute star in this film.
The direction, as expected, is brilliant. Whether watching the titular ship coast through the vastness of space in CGI, or the expertly crafted ensemble scenes with live action cast, Ridley Scott does a bang up job. The film is undoubtedly beautiful. An expertly crafted visual tour de force. It never feels overly long or dragged out, the film never feels dissected or short changed. If anything it feels as if it would benefit from a Director's cut or a Lord of the Rings-esque extended edition. The reason for this leads directly into the second major flaw of the film, and that lies within the undefinable genre of the film. It chops and changes from sci-fi thriller, to mystery, to action flick and finally into horror. It can't and doesn't stick with any one genre, this causes the experience as a viewer to become fragmented because just as you're expecting something to happen it doesn't and changes, and not in a good way. It creates a very disjointed and unsatisfying viewing experience.
This fragmentation also leads into the final major flaw in the film. The third act. Although brilliant at times. There is simply too much going on, a slow paced lead in is ruined by having the final 30mins go completely off the wall. Various plot threads are tied up in such a way that it feels forced and almost contrived. Especially as the last 5 or so minutes feel like they are almost a standalone teaser for 'Prometheus 2: *Spoilerific Title*'. Literally setting out the plot for a follow up.
I know this review seems primarily negative. But I did enjoy the film, don't get me wrong. I just feel that it could have been so much more. Had the 'star map' been followed it could have been a masterpiece to rival its predecessor/sister/prequel. Definitely worthy of watching on the big screen, just don't expect to be blown away.
7.5 - Good
P.S. I may update this review after a second viewing as upon re-reading it, it seems like a slating
Monday, 4 June 2012
Monday, 28 May 2012
American Pie: Reunion
A little delayed. So I apologise.
American Pie: Reunion
I don't want to start all of these reviews by complaining about marketing changes names for international releases however this series is another one that suffers in this category. With the first two films following the typical numerical convention the third film decided to focus itself on the event of the wedding and as such was released in the states as 'American Wedding' however internationally feeling that audiences wouldn't make the connection with the first two films it was released internationally as 'American Pie: The Wedding' adding a semi colon that almost makes it feel like a spinoff from the original series rather than a true sequel. And whilst with regard to the third film this almost true as it features a greatly reduced ensemble of the original cast, carrying on this with 4th film (I'm not counting the 4 'presents' films) seems wrong as it reunites the entire core cast of the first two films.
Before watching this film I must state that I watched the original trilogy on Blu-Ray in preparation and to remind myself of the quality of the originals after the taint of the 'presents' series. Reminding myself of the antics of Jim and the gang only served to enhance my viewing experience of the new film and I will state that this is a film that does carry a fair amount of expectation to fully appreciate and understand some of the jokes it carries. Written by Jon Hurwitz, of 'Harold and Kumar' fame, it is clear that he is a fan of the originals and as such does a good job of providing plenty of references and homages that this film deserves. Allowing it's audience to reminisce along with the characters about the good old days. Along with his partner in crime from 'Harold and Kumar', Hayden Schlossberg, Hurwitz also directs the picture and the pair of them do a good job in providing a familial feeling as all of the characters are reintroduced in their modern instances and the story is set up with room to grow. The duo also stay in keeping with the previous films in terms of the movie's structure. The set pieces and regular events, embarrassing moments and Stifler's parties, are all in keeping with the film's predecessors and this is not a bad thing. By the time 'American Wedding' rolled round the formula was becoming a little stale, however after a break of nine years, although not necessarily refreshing, it definitely provides a welcome return and feels right within the setting and story.
The actors, a lot returning for their third outing in the same characters, have become comfortable in their roles and how to portray them, and I'm very pleased to say that Seann William Scott's Stifler is nowhere near as obnoxious as he was in the third film and that although still very brash he is very much the Stifler from circa American Pie 2. The absentees from 'American Wedding' Chris Klein, Tara Reid, Mena Suvari all hit their stride in ensuring their characters are remembered fondly and reinserted into the gang, even if a couple of them seem to be relegated to asides so as not to detract too much from the main story. Jason Biggs seems to be at home portraying Jim now and asserts this with an almost newfound confidence that the now more mature Jim possesses, despite his ever present neurosis.
Without spoiling any key points, the film centres on the Great East Falls Class of '99 heading to their 13th, "we missed ten years by a few", high school reunion. Jim and Michelle are married with a two year old and are suffering with lack of action in the marital bedroom. Kevin has pretty much become a housewife watching and TiVo-ing American tv shows. Oz is a famous presenter on a Sports Cast TV show in LA and recently appeared on 'Dancing with the stars'. Stifler is working at a law firm, and I use the term working loosely. And finally Finch is MIA. Needless to say they all reunite very quickly and as you can imagine chaos and life lessons ensue.
As mentioned previously in here, this is definitely a film aimed at fans of the series and as such will definitely appeal more to fans of the series. In closing if you loved the prior films this is a must see. If you fell out of love with the series following the original, give it a chance. If you hated them all. Don't bother but the soundtrack is good.
7.5 - Good
American Pie: Reunion
I don't want to start all of these reviews by complaining about marketing changes names for international releases however this series is another one that suffers in this category. With the first two films following the typical numerical convention the third film decided to focus itself on the event of the wedding and as such was released in the states as 'American Wedding' however internationally feeling that audiences wouldn't make the connection with the first two films it was released internationally as 'American Pie: The Wedding' adding a semi colon that almost makes it feel like a spinoff from the original series rather than a true sequel. And whilst with regard to the third film this almost true as it features a greatly reduced ensemble of the original cast, carrying on this with 4th film (I'm not counting the 4 'presents' films) seems wrong as it reunites the entire core cast of the first two films.
Before watching this film I must state that I watched the original trilogy on Blu-Ray in preparation and to remind myself of the quality of the originals after the taint of the 'presents' series. Reminding myself of the antics of Jim and the gang only served to enhance my viewing experience of the new film and I will state that this is a film that does carry a fair amount of expectation to fully appreciate and understand some of the jokes it carries. Written by Jon Hurwitz, of 'Harold and Kumar' fame, it is clear that he is a fan of the originals and as such does a good job of providing plenty of references and homages that this film deserves. Allowing it's audience to reminisce along with the characters about the good old days. Along with his partner in crime from 'Harold and Kumar', Hayden Schlossberg, Hurwitz also directs the picture and the pair of them do a good job in providing a familial feeling as all of the characters are reintroduced in their modern instances and the story is set up with room to grow. The duo also stay in keeping with the previous films in terms of the movie's structure. The set pieces and regular events, embarrassing moments and Stifler's parties, are all in keeping with the film's predecessors and this is not a bad thing. By the time 'American Wedding' rolled round the formula was becoming a little stale, however after a break of nine years, although not necessarily refreshing, it definitely provides a welcome return and feels right within the setting and story.
The actors, a lot returning for their third outing in the same characters, have become comfortable in their roles and how to portray them, and I'm very pleased to say that Seann William Scott's Stifler is nowhere near as obnoxious as he was in the third film and that although still very brash he is very much the Stifler from circa American Pie 2. The absentees from 'American Wedding' Chris Klein, Tara Reid, Mena Suvari all hit their stride in ensuring their characters are remembered fondly and reinserted into the gang, even if a couple of them seem to be relegated to asides so as not to detract too much from the main story. Jason Biggs seems to be at home portraying Jim now and asserts this with an almost newfound confidence that the now more mature Jim possesses, despite his ever present neurosis.
Without spoiling any key points, the film centres on the Great East Falls Class of '99 heading to their 13th, "we missed ten years by a few", high school reunion. Jim and Michelle are married with a two year old and are suffering with lack of action in the marital bedroom. Kevin has pretty much become a housewife watching and TiVo-ing American tv shows. Oz is a famous presenter on a Sports Cast TV show in LA and recently appeared on 'Dancing with the stars'. Stifler is working at a law firm, and I use the term working loosely. And finally Finch is MIA. Needless to say they all reunite very quickly and as you can imagine chaos and life lessons ensue.
As mentioned previously in here, this is definitely a film aimed at fans of the series and as such will definitely appeal more to fans of the series. In closing if you loved the prior films this is a must see. If you fell out of love with the series following the original, give it a chance. If you hated them all. Don't bother but the soundtrack is good.
7.5 - Good
Monday, 30 April 2012
IGN Review Scale
For those unfamiliar with the giant that is IGN below is a brief description of their review scale. Taken directly from their website as this is what I will be following on here.
Also please visit http://www.IGN.com for game reviews, news and features. They also do tech movies, comics and TV as well.
All credit to IGN for this:
IGN Ratings and Reviews Policy
At IGN, we're all about having fun, but when it comes to reviews we take things seriously. Reviewing games is the most important thing we do. Reviews are when we help you make a monetary decision. Our goal is twofold: Offer a critical view of how a game compares to its peers and give you all the info needed to determine if a game is worth your hard-earned cash.
Of course, not everyone wants to read through a review and some prefer a summary because they have poor reading retention. For that reason, we provide a closing comments section and a final score. While the closing comments won't provide you with much detail, it offers a snapshot of our impressions of a game.
The IGN Review Scale
For more than a decade, IGN reviewed games on a 100-point scale. Meaning we gave games from a 0.1-10.0 and every digit in between. In the early days of game journalism, the emphasis was on overanalyzing games, perhaps to try and assure people of its validity as an art form.
Over the years, it's become more and more clear that most folks don't need criticism on such a microscopic level and that debating the merits of Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2 is valid regardless if one received a .1 higher score.
Our goal has always been to help you make a good purchase decision and, frankly, you don't need scores broken down to such a minute level to get the point across. And we would rather that debates on which game is better (including in our own office) weren't determined by a tenth-of-a-point. If two amazing games get a 9.5, you'll know each is worth buying and the decision on which is better occurs beyond the review. Basically, we don't want reviews to end the discussion, but perhaps encourage more of them.
10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.
Example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
9.0/9.5 - Amazing
One of the best games out there. When this generation of games ends, people will look back and say, "This was one of the best games made for the system." It might have a few flaws, but this is a must-buy.
Example: Sid Meier's Civilization V
8.0/8.5 - Great
If you play a lot of games, then you have got to play this one. It might not be among the very best available, but it's worth your time. If this is the type of game that appeals to you, then this one should be an automatic purchase.
Example: Rock Band 3
7.0/7.5 - Good
Sure, there are some issues, but the overall experience is still good enough to recommend. Maybe it lacks ambition or it's repetitive or has too many technical glitches, but we had fun playing it nonetheless and think you will too.
Example: Mafia II
6.0/6.5 - Okay
No one should settle for "just OK." When games cost as much as they do, then it's up to publishers to deliver some bang for our buck. And while this game is passable, it's probably only worth a rental.
Example: Tom Clancy's HAWX 2
5.0/5.5 - Mediocre
This game is on the cusp of being bad. That means that there are one or two good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed.
Example: Final Fantasy XIV Online
4.0/4.5 - Bad
Something went wrong during development and this egg went a little rotten. There's nothing worse than a game that ends up as "bad" on our scale, because it usually means there was some potential that the developer couldn't live up to.
Example: Saw II
3.0/3.5 - Awful
Bad concept, severe technical flaws, terrible design -- these are just some of the characteristics of an awful game. Getting to the end just might be impossible, because the experience is just so terrible.
Example: Samurai Warriors 3
2.0/2.5 - Painful
It physically hurts to play this game. That's how bad it is. Like moonshine -- it could actually make you go blind. Example: Quantum Theory
1.0/1.5 - Unbearable
The more you play, the harder it gets to continue living. There's nothing new or interesting here. Nothing exciting. And, frankly, nothing that works.
Example: The Simpsons Wrestling
0/0.5 - Disaster
One of the worst games ever made. Roger Ebert holds this game while standing on his soap box and declares it proof that games are not art.
Example: Extreme PaintBrawl
How do you determine scores?
For us, a review has two main purposes: To judge whether or not a game is worth buying and to rank it's quality among other similar titles. We look for games that are fun to play, but are also keen to find games that push the boundaries and explore new territory.
Unfortunately, there's no science behind a score, no algorithm that can be run to "get it right." It evolves as a process from an editor playing through a game, talking with others about the experience, and looking at how it stacks up against other games.
What happens to the old scores?
You'll notice that all games reviewed prior to July 26, 2010 retain their original scores (of our previous 100-point scale). We wanted to maintain the legacy of IGN's reviews. And it would be difficult to go through thousands of previous reviews and make determinations on a new score.
How do you decide who gets to review what games?
Everyone has certain types of games that interest them. Some folks love shooters and others like a good role-playing game. There are those who want to get lost exploring an open world for a hundred hours and others who want a shorter, more directed experience. Editors at IGN speak up about the games they want to play so we make sure people are playing things that interest them.
And yes, sometimes people are eager to play games that turn out to be really bad. No one wants to review just the AAA titles. It gets boring after a while to write high praise for everything.
Source -- http://uk.games.ign.com/ratings.html
Also please visit http://www.IGN.com for game reviews, news and features. They also do tech movies, comics and TV as well.
All credit to IGN for this:
IGN Ratings and Reviews Policy
At IGN, we're all about having fun, but when it comes to reviews we take things seriously. Reviewing games is the most important thing we do. Reviews are when we help you make a monetary decision. Our goal is twofold: Offer a critical view of how a game compares to its peers and give you all the info needed to determine if a game is worth your hard-earned cash.
Of course, not everyone wants to read through a review and some prefer a summary because they have poor reading retention. For that reason, we provide a closing comments section and a final score. While the closing comments won't provide you with much detail, it offers a snapshot of our impressions of a game.
The IGN Review Scale
For more than a decade, IGN reviewed games on a 100-point scale. Meaning we gave games from a 0.1-10.0 and every digit in between. In the early days of game journalism, the emphasis was on overanalyzing games, perhaps to try and assure people of its validity as an art form.
Over the years, it's become more and more clear that most folks don't need criticism on such a microscopic level and that debating the merits of Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2 is valid regardless if one received a .1 higher score.
Our goal has always been to help you make a good purchase decision and, frankly, you don't need scores broken down to such a minute level to get the point across. And we would rather that debates on which game is better (including in our own office) weren't determined by a tenth-of-a-point. If two amazing games get a 9.5, you'll know each is worth buying and the decision on which is better occurs beyond the review. Basically, we don't want reviews to end the discussion, but perhaps encourage more of them.
10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.
Example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
9.0/9.5 - Amazing
One of the best games out there. When this generation of games ends, people will look back and say, "This was one of the best games made for the system." It might have a few flaws, but this is a must-buy.
Example: Sid Meier's Civilization V
8.0/8.5 - Great
If you play a lot of games, then you have got to play this one. It might not be among the very best available, but it's worth your time. If this is the type of game that appeals to you, then this one should be an automatic purchase.
Example: Rock Band 3
7.0/7.5 - Good
Sure, there are some issues, but the overall experience is still good enough to recommend. Maybe it lacks ambition or it's repetitive or has too many technical glitches, but we had fun playing it nonetheless and think you will too.
Example: Mafia II
6.0/6.5 - Okay
No one should settle for "just OK." When games cost as much as they do, then it's up to publishers to deliver some bang for our buck. And while this game is passable, it's probably only worth a rental.
Example: Tom Clancy's HAWX 2
5.0/5.5 - Mediocre
This game is on the cusp of being bad. That means that there are one or two good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed.
Example: Final Fantasy XIV Online
4.0/4.5 - Bad
Something went wrong during development and this egg went a little rotten. There's nothing worse than a game that ends up as "bad" on our scale, because it usually means there was some potential that the developer couldn't live up to.
Example: Saw II
3.0/3.5 - Awful
Bad concept, severe technical flaws, terrible design -- these are just some of the characteristics of an awful game. Getting to the end just might be impossible, because the experience is just so terrible.
Example: Samurai Warriors 3
2.0/2.5 - Painful
It physically hurts to play this game. That's how bad it is. Like moonshine -- it could actually make you go blind. Example: Quantum Theory
1.0/1.5 - Unbearable
The more you play, the harder it gets to continue living. There's nothing new or interesting here. Nothing exciting. And, frankly, nothing that works.
Example: The Simpsons Wrestling
0/0.5 - Disaster
One of the worst games ever made. Roger Ebert holds this game while standing on his soap box and declares it proof that games are not art.
Example: Extreme PaintBrawl
How do you determine scores?
For us, a review has two main purposes: To judge whether or not a game is worth buying and to rank it's quality among other similar titles. We look for games that are fun to play, but are also keen to find games that push the boundaries and explore new territory.
Unfortunately, there's no science behind a score, no algorithm that can be run to "get it right." It evolves as a process from an editor playing through a game, talking with others about the experience, and looking at how it stacks up against other games.
What happens to the old scores?
You'll notice that all games reviewed prior to July 26, 2010 retain their original scores (of our previous 100-point scale). We wanted to maintain the legacy of IGN's reviews. And it would be difficult to go through thousands of previous reviews and make determinations on a new score.
How do you decide who gets to review what games?
Everyone has certain types of games that interest them. Some folks love shooters and others like a good role-playing game. There are those who want to get lost exploring an open world for a hundred hours and others who want a shorter, more directed experience. Editors at IGN speak up about the games they want to play so we make sure people are playing things that interest them.
And yes, sometimes people are eager to play games that turn out to be really bad. No one wants to review just the AAA titles. It gets boring after a while to write high praise for everything.
Source -- http://uk.games.ign.com/ratings.html
Sunday, 29 April 2012
The Avengers Assemble
First of all let's get this out of the way. The Re-naming of this film. Why Marvel thought the British public were so naive/stupid (delete as appropriate) that they would, because of the title 'The Avengers', immediately think that this was related to the 1960's TV show that, granted did share the name, most famously starred Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg in a spy-fi setting is beyond me. Surely the huge marketing and tv spot push starring characters from the effectively five films preceding this one would negate any connection to the 60's show. Additionally the fact that it is aimed primarily at people who were born at least 10 years after the original series was on screen and who wouldn't make that connection anyway would negate this connection.
Anyway, rant over, the film. The reigns of this are taken by Joss Whedon, a fan favourite to say the least, who has a proven track record of managing and delivering story based action with an ensemble cast on both the large and small screen. With directing experience of Serenity and various episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly and Dollhouse, and writing credits on all of the above plus the likes of Toy Story and Alien: Resurrection to his name on paper he is golden. The good news is that he does deliver. His trademark style of managing moments with great emotion alongside big action set pieces and items of comedy gold is evident throughout the film and lends to the style and effect as a whole. With the, as previously mentioned, five films of backstory Whedon does an amazing job of reintroducing all of the characters in their various settings, also highlighting their respective different talents, with minimum fuss and without taking up too much valuable screen time in what is a perfectly balanced piece of cinema.
Without spoiling too much of the plot, the basic premise is that instead of their individual snafu's the Earth's greatest hero's are called together to defend us against a threat on the Global scale. Despite the actual threat against us seeming to be little more than cannon fodder for our heroes to despatch it works. With the grandiose battle sequences littered around the film, however the main battle at the end serving as the spectacle, and the little touches of seriousness, and infighting that fans of the comic would expect, combined with Whedon's trademark humour the film strikes an almost perfect balance.
Unfortunately the film does have it's inherent flaws that will come as no surprise to fans of the genre and the main one being it's real arch enemy Exposition. Because of the nature of supernatural and technology based films the explanations and furthering of plots based around the Macguffin (special object that does stuff key to the plot) does sometimes sag in parts and can lead to both snores and looks of confusion. However these are few and far between and usually littered with a dry numerous comment from one of the leads.
As a whole the cast works together superbly and anyone experiencing fear or doubt over the third recast of one Dr Banner and 'the other guy' can rest assured that Mark Ruffalo is probably the best incarnation of the the big guy on film to date and the character is portrayed as the perfect balance of Stephen Hawking and a guy that can flip at any given moment. Tom Hiddleston's Loki is the perfect villain, carrying subtext from Thor that helps establish his inherent evil and the backstory between the pair of them, he is believable as the deluded pawn of a greater evil and a tangible villain that the titular Avengers can focus on. Even the previously lesser characters of Black Widow, Hawkeye and Clark Gregg's Agent Phil Coulson get their own moments of glory throughout the film. Despite one of them being a pawn for the bad guys for a good two thirds of the film. Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury gets a few moments to shine of his own and asserts his BMF status. Really the only main cast member that doesn't get a substantial input is Cobie Smulders', of How I Met Your Mother fame, Maria Hill. While she does get time to shine and prove herself at the beginning of the film, following that all she really does is play yes-man to SLJ's Fury.
The highlight if the film does have to be the closing battle sequence where, although mostly CGI, the camera follows each of our heroes in their own respective fights alongside each other and individually showing the part that each of them play in one singular sweeping motion. A masterstroke of direction that really portrays the scale and dimension of the climatic battle that closes with a real good laugh out loud moment for the audience.
In closing the film is a fitting end to the previous five films' build up to this point and provides a fantastic, yet challenging for future directors, stepping stone to build the future of this franchise and it's respective inclusive franchises upon. However if Whedon decides not to return to the direct sequel to this for any reason it could be a tough act to follow. Bring on Iron Man 3 (next in Marvel's release schedule for these characters).
I will be following the IGN (http://www.ign.com) review scale for my reviews in this blog. For more information and also to check out an awesome website please follow the above link.
9.5/10 - Amazing
Anyway, rant over, the film. The reigns of this are taken by Joss Whedon, a fan favourite to say the least, who has a proven track record of managing and delivering story based action with an ensemble cast on both the large and small screen. With directing experience of Serenity and various episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly and Dollhouse, and writing credits on all of the above plus the likes of Toy Story and Alien: Resurrection to his name on paper he is golden. The good news is that he does deliver. His trademark style of managing moments with great emotion alongside big action set pieces and items of comedy gold is evident throughout the film and lends to the style and effect as a whole. With the, as previously mentioned, five films of backstory Whedon does an amazing job of reintroducing all of the characters in their various settings, also highlighting their respective different talents, with minimum fuss and without taking up too much valuable screen time in what is a perfectly balanced piece of cinema.
Without spoiling too much of the plot, the basic premise is that instead of their individual snafu's the Earth's greatest hero's are called together to defend us against a threat on the Global scale. Despite the actual threat against us seeming to be little more than cannon fodder for our heroes to despatch it works. With the grandiose battle sequences littered around the film, however the main battle at the end serving as the spectacle, and the little touches of seriousness, and infighting that fans of the comic would expect, combined with Whedon's trademark humour the film strikes an almost perfect balance.
Unfortunately the film does have it's inherent flaws that will come as no surprise to fans of the genre and the main one being it's real arch enemy Exposition. Because of the nature of supernatural and technology based films the explanations and furthering of plots based around the Macguffin (special object that does stuff key to the plot) does sometimes sag in parts and can lead to both snores and looks of confusion. However these are few and far between and usually littered with a dry numerous comment from one of the leads.
As a whole the cast works together superbly and anyone experiencing fear or doubt over the third recast of one Dr Banner and 'the other guy' can rest assured that Mark Ruffalo is probably the best incarnation of the the big guy on film to date and the character is portrayed as the perfect balance of Stephen Hawking and a guy that can flip at any given moment. Tom Hiddleston's Loki is the perfect villain, carrying subtext from Thor that helps establish his inherent evil and the backstory between the pair of them, he is believable as the deluded pawn of a greater evil and a tangible villain that the titular Avengers can focus on. Even the previously lesser characters of Black Widow, Hawkeye and Clark Gregg's Agent Phil Coulson get their own moments of glory throughout the film. Despite one of them being a pawn for the bad guys for a good two thirds of the film. Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury gets a few moments to shine of his own and asserts his BMF status. Really the only main cast member that doesn't get a substantial input is Cobie Smulders', of How I Met Your Mother fame, Maria Hill. While she does get time to shine and prove herself at the beginning of the film, following that all she really does is play yes-man to SLJ's Fury.
The highlight if the film does have to be the closing battle sequence where, although mostly CGI, the camera follows each of our heroes in their own respective fights alongside each other and individually showing the part that each of them play in one singular sweeping motion. A masterstroke of direction that really portrays the scale and dimension of the climatic battle that closes with a real good laugh out loud moment for the audience.
In closing the film is a fitting end to the previous five films' build up to this point and provides a fantastic, yet challenging for future directors, stepping stone to build the future of this franchise and it's respective inclusive franchises upon. However if Whedon decides not to return to the direct sequel to this for any reason it could be a tough act to follow. Bring on Iron Man 3 (next in Marvel's release schedule for these characters).
I will be following the IGN (http://www.ign.com) review scale for my reviews in this blog. For more information and also to check out an awesome website please follow the above link.
9.5/10 - Amazing
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)