I'm not going to lie: I've been waiting for this movie for quite some time. I first learned of the existence of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter when it came out as a novel back in 2010, and since the first announcements of a movie, my interest was instantly piqued. Written by Seth Grahame-Smith, the same author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is portrayed as the secret journal of Abraham Lincoln, and uncovers the "secret truth" about how all of the actions in his life were dictated by the existence of vampires and his lifelong obsession with killing them. It's an absolutely absurd, yet incredibly entertaining premise, and the film adaptation brings the oddball charm of the book to life.
Despite Tim Burton producing and Wanted's Timur Bekmambetov in the director's chair, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has plenty of relatively unknown actors making up the cast. Benjamin Walker plays our 16th president from his teenage years into adulthood, and by his side is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's Mary-Elizabeth Winstead as Mary Tood Lincoln. Walker and Winstead are both surprisingly good at playing both the youthful and energetic Lincolns of youth and the burdened family at the head of a war-torn nation. Also rounding out the main cast is Dominic Cooper as Henry Sturgess, Lincoln's mysterious vampire-hunting mentor, and Rufus Sewell as Adam, the head of all vampire operations in the United States. For a summer blockbuster action movie, all of the main cast is surprisingly good, and the depth of every character is explored through the choices the actors make.
Unfortunately, the great acting is not complimented by a very good script. The action scenes in the movie are amazing, but the script is painfully cheesy, and not in a good, let's-laugh-at-this kind of way. The voiceovers are ridiculously dramatic, the montages are predictable and cliche, and the chemistry between the leads is only about one step up from the train wreck that was Star Wars Episode III. On a personal note, I was sad that they left out his adventure with Edgar Allen Poe, but it was an understandable cut for an already long movie.
Overall, I was immensely entertained by the film, and yet incredibly disappointed at what it had the potential to be. The fight scenes are awesome, and it makes a great action movie, but it wasted some great talent on a very clumsy script that could be painful to watch when Lincoln wasn't swinging an axe through a vampire's face. It's not a wonderful movie, but it's a great movie to turn your brain off and thoroughly enjoy. I give it 6 and a half silver-coated axeheads out of 10.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
J. Edgar
When I heard that a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover was being made, I, as a history major, was a bit wary. Hoover was a controversial and polarizing figure, and his secretive nature made documents regarding his personal life rare and incomplete, and it would be all too easy to play to some of the more scandalous rumors that surrounded him, regardless of their accuracy. On the other hand, when I heard it was going to be directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, I was excited at how well-made I knew it was going to be.
Well, I was pretty much right.
J. Edgar is a historically flawed, but otherwise impressive film. DiCaprio plays the title character as he tells his life story to a stenographer shortly before his death. His supporting cast is pretty impressive as well. Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal secretary, and Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother, whose controlling nature hovers over Hoover for his entire life. The breakout actor in this film, though, is Armie Hammer, who most people would recognize as the actor who played both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. In this film, he plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover's longtime friend, confidant, and rumored lover. Tolson is the most human character in a movie filled with cold-hearted bureaucrats, and Hammer is excellent at showing the struggle that is dealing with Hoover's abrasive personality in both a professional and personal sense.
Although it was well-acted and well-paced, I did have a couple of problems with the film. Probably the most glaring flaw of the film was the make-up. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong here, but the people responsible for aging DiCaprio and Hammer did one of the worst aging jobs I've ever seen. It was...it was just terrible. My other gripe is the aforementioned exploitation of the Hoover mythos. Whether Hoover was secretly gay or not is a mystery that might not ever be fully explained, but I hated the fact that it was not only conveyed as a fact, but became central to the movie's plot. As someone who has a soft spot in his heart for historically accurate movies (Public Enemies is one of my favorites for that reason), I had a really big problem with something that controversial being taken as canonical information on his life.
Overall, J. Edgar is a pretty fantastic film. Historically inaccurate, with glaringly fake age make-up, but otherwise incredibly well-done. The acting is fantastic, the pacing is great, and even the smaller directing choices, like angles and lighting, all do their part to tell the story of one of the most secretive public figures of 20th century America. I give it 8 blackmail files on public officials out of 10.
Well, I was pretty much right.
J. Edgar is a historically flawed, but otherwise impressive film. DiCaprio plays the title character as he tells his life story to a stenographer shortly before his death. His supporting cast is pretty impressive as well. Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal secretary, and Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother, whose controlling nature hovers over Hoover for his entire life. The breakout actor in this film, though, is Armie Hammer, who most people would recognize as the actor who played both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. In this film, he plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover's longtime friend, confidant, and rumored lover. Tolson is the most human character in a movie filled with cold-hearted bureaucrats, and Hammer is excellent at showing the struggle that is dealing with Hoover's abrasive personality in both a professional and personal sense.
Although it was well-acted and well-paced, I did have a couple of problems with the film. Probably the most glaring flaw of the film was the make-up. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong here, but the people responsible for aging DiCaprio and Hammer did one of the worst aging jobs I've ever seen. It was...it was just terrible. My other gripe is the aforementioned exploitation of the Hoover mythos. Whether Hoover was secretly gay or not is a mystery that might not ever be fully explained, but I hated the fact that it was not only conveyed as a fact, but became central to the movie's plot. As someone who has a soft spot in his heart for historically accurate movies (Public Enemies is one of my favorites for that reason), I had a really big problem with something that controversial being taken as canonical information on his life.
Overall, J. Edgar is a pretty fantastic film. Historically inaccurate, with glaringly fake age make-up, but otherwise incredibly well-done. The acting is fantastic, the pacing is great, and even the smaller directing choices, like angles and lighting, all do their part to tell the story of one of the most secretive public figures of 20th century America. I give it 8 blackmail files on public officials out of 10.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Carnage
A while back, a friend of mine sent me the trailer to this movie, and I got very excited. A Roman Polanski film starring four talented actors, set entirely in one apartment, about the devolution of civility in the face of adversity? Sign me up, right? Well, after a virtually nonexistent theatrical run (in limited markets, nonetheless), Carnage finally hit DVD, so I was very excited to go pick it up. I was thoroughly expecting to get blown away by a dream team of creative talent, but I have to admit, I was a little disappointed with what I watched.
Carnage is based off of the French play God of Carnage, and is centered around two sets of parents who meet to discuss an altercation between their sons. The Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) are invited to the home of the Longstreets (John C. Reilly and Julianne Moore) to meet and civilly talk through what happened and how to remedy the problem. As the conversation continues, conflict arises, and we get to watch what happens as the barriers of politeness slowly deteriorate. All four of the actors in the movie are on point, but the standout performance has got to be from Reilly. Constantly trying to diffuse the tension, his character seems weak at first, but as the passive aggression builds and the anger boils over, his character starts to lose his grip, and that's when we really get to see his serious acting chops.
My main gripe with Carnage is the pacing. It's a two hour movie set entirely in one location and focuses on one subject for the entirety of the film. While compelling in its own right, and a definite change of pace from the A.D.D.-friendly choppiness so rampant in modern film, it drags very badly in the middle third of the movie, as we watch the characters get fed up with one another at a snail's pace. The tension builds far too slowly, and it's dreadfully boring to sit through to get to the payoff that is the final third of the movie.
I walked away with the impression that Carnage is definitely a screenplay that is more fun to perform in than to watch. The characters have plenty of depth and nuance, the subject matter is compelling, and the chance to perform with that much emotional range is very alluring. However, the movie is about a half-hour too long and starts to feel repetitive at times. Carnage is a good film, it's just not the great one I was expecting. I give it 7.5 interrupting cell phone calls out of 10.
Carnage is based off of the French play God of Carnage, and is centered around two sets of parents who meet to discuss an altercation between their sons. The Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) are invited to the home of the Longstreets (John C. Reilly and Julianne Moore) to meet and civilly talk through what happened and how to remedy the problem. As the conversation continues, conflict arises, and we get to watch what happens as the barriers of politeness slowly deteriorate. All four of the actors in the movie are on point, but the standout performance has got to be from Reilly. Constantly trying to diffuse the tension, his character seems weak at first, but as the passive aggression builds and the anger boils over, his character starts to lose his grip, and that's when we really get to see his serious acting chops.
My main gripe with Carnage is the pacing. It's a two hour movie set entirely in one location and focuses on one subject for the entirety of the film. While compelling in its own right, and a definite change of pace from the A.D.D.-friendly choppiness so rampant in modern film, it drags very badly in the middle third of the movie, as we watch the characters get fed up with one another at a snail's pace. The tension builds far too slowly, and it's dreadfully boring to sit through to get to the payoff that is the final third of the movie.
I walked away with the impression that Carnage is definitely a screenplay that is more fun to perform in than to watch. The characters have plenty of depth and nuance, the subject matter is compelling, and the chance to perform with that much emotional range is very alluring. However, the movie is about a half-hour too long and starts to feel repetitive at times. Carnage is a good film, it's just not the great one I was expecting. I give it 7.5 interrupting cell phone calls out of 10.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Men in Black 3
Ten years is a long time to wait to revive a franchise, especially without a reboot. Typically, after a few years of inactivity, it's a pretty safe bet to say that a franchise is either dead or being rebooted. But then you have your other franchises that come out of hibernation to give it one last hurrah, and that hurrah usually sucks. Look at the piece of garbage that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and tell me I'm wrong. But, as with any rule, there are always exceptions, and fortunately, Men in Black 3 made the franchise worth reviving.
When we last left Agent J and Agent K in 2002, they had fought through a weak sequel and no one was clamoring for a third film. Well, after a few cast shake-ups, they finally came out with a solid offering that outshines the second film in almost every respect. Gone are some memorable characters (Agent Zed, Frank the talking pug), but are replaced with some new endearing characters. Emma Thompson's turn as Agent O, the new head of the Men in Black, is a nice change of pace from Rip Torn's portrayal of Agent Zed, and Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is surprisingly good at playing Boris the Animal, a powerful, brutal alien criminal bent on destroying Agent K. But the runaway performer of the film is definitely Josh Brolin, who plays a young Agent K. The film deals mostly with Agent J discovering K's past, and Brolin does a really good job at playing the young version of an iconic character in the series.
Stylistically, the movie feels right at home next to the first two. The relationships between the MIB and the aliens, the CGI effects, and the offbeat humor is very much in the style of the first two. Barring the obviously cheesy scenes designed for 3D, it's pulled off with the same kind of cool as the original, making you feel like barely any time has passed between the sequels at all.
All in all, Men in Black 3 is a very solid sequel to a popular movie franchise. It's not quite as good as the original, but miles ahead of the second one in nearly every aspect. The humor is on point, the action scenes are tense and fun, and some of the acting is surprisingly well done. I'm not expecting it to win any awards, but any fans of the Men in Black series would do themselves a favor by watching this movie. I give it 7 time-traveling mishaps out of 10.
When we last left Agent J and Agent K in 2002, they had fought through a weak sequel and no one was clamoring for a third film. Well, after a few cast shake-ups, they finally came out with a solid offering that outshines the second film in almost every respect. Gone are some memorable characters (Agent Zed, Frank the talking pug), but are replaced with some new endearing characters. Emma Thompson's turn as Agent O, the new head of the Men in Black, is a nice change of pace from Rip Torn's portrayal of Agent Zed, and Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is surprisingly good at playing Boris the Animal, a powerful, brutal alien criminal bent on destroying Agent K. But the runaway performer of the film is definitely Josh Brolin, who plays a young Agent K. The film deals mostly with Agent J discovering K's past, and Brolin does a really good job at playing the young version of an iconic character in the series.
Stylistically, the movie feels right at home next to the first two. The relationships between the MIB and the aliens, the CGI effects, and the offbeat humor is very much in the style of the first two. Barring the obviously cheesy scenes designed for 3D, it's pulled off with the same kind of cool as the original, making you feel like barely any time has passed between the sequels at all.
All in all, Men in Black 3 is a very solid sequel to a popular movie franchise. It's not quite as good as the original, but miles ahead of the second one in nearly every aspect. The humor is on point, the action scenes are tense and fun, and some of the acting is surprisingly well done. I'm not expecting it to win any awards, but any fans of the Men in Black series would do themselves a favor by watching this movie. I give it 7 time-traveling mishaps out of 10.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Eight down, one to go. My quest to see all nine of the Academy Award nominees is drawing closer to its end, and now I get to scratch Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close off the list. Based off the book of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer, it's the story of a boy who is searching for a lock that fits a key he finds among his father's belongings after his father dies in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. I went into the movie expecting it to be a little dependent on its link to 9/11 and bracing myself for two hours of the emotional exploitation of a national tragedy, but I came away from it pleasantly surprised.
Don't get me wrong: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close really had no place being honored as one of the best movies of the year. It's good, but there were plenty of other films that had more going for them. This movie is all about playing your emotions like a fiddle and making you feel extremely sorry for the main character. Thomas Horn plays Oskar Schell, an eccentric boy who idolizes his father (Tom Hanks). When his father dies in the World Trade Center, Oskar tries to cope with his loss, and while looking through his father's possessions a year later, comes across a mysterious key to a lockbox and a single word written on the envelope. This launches a citywide adventure for Oskar, who uses the adventure as an opportunity to combat his own social awkwardness and connect with people from all walks of life. If that brief description doesn't scream "emotional roller coaster" enough for you, factor in a mute old man and a grieving mother as his accomplices and tell me that doesn't sound like one of the most bittersweet movies you'll ever watch. And I'll tell you you're right.
The saving grace in this movie is the acting. It's easy to ride the emotional wave of the story alone, but the actors in this film really do sell the movie and make it seem a little more real. Horn does an amazing job, especially since this is his first role in a feature film. Add in Tom Hanks as the father, Sandra Bullock as the mother, and supporting roles by Octavia Spencer, John Goodman, and Max von Sydow (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role as the mute Renter), and you have a very strong group of talent that takes an otherwise forgettable movie and makes it something worth watching.
All in all, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is an okay movie, but not too much more than that. I see the appeal, and I compare the feeling you get from watching this to watching The Blind Side, but just because it made me feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't necessarily mean it was great. It kind of drags, and the story just seems a little too warm and fuzzy to be believable. I recommend watching it, but don't get your hopes up for it being fantastic. I give it 6 1/2 heartwarming connections between racial and economic barriers out of 10.
Don't get me wrong: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close really had no place being honored as one of the best movies of the year. It's good, but there were plenty of other films that had more going for them. This movie is all about playing your emotions like a fiddle and making you feel extremely sorry for the main character. Thomas Horn plays Oskar Schell, an eccentric boy who idolizes his father (Tom Hanks). When his father dies in the World Trade Center, Oskar tries to cope with his loss, and while looking through his father's possessions a year later, comes across a mysterious key to a lockbox and a single word written on the envelope. This launches a citywide adventure for Oskar, who uses the adventure as an opportunity to combat his own social awkwardness and connect with people from all walks of life. If that brief description doesn't scream "emotional roller coaster" enough for you, factor in a mute old man and a grieving mother as his accomplices and tell me that doesn't sound like one of the most bittersweet movies you'll ever watch. And I'll tell you you're right.
The saving grace in this movie is the acting. It's easy to ride the emotional wave of the story alone, but the actors in this film really do sell the movie and make it seem a little more real. Horn does an amazing job, especially since this is his first role in a feature film. Add in Tom Hanks as the father, Sandra Bullock as the mother, and supporting roles by Octavia Spencer, John Goodman, and Max von Sydow (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role as the mute Renter), and you have a very strong group of talent that takes an otherwise forgettable movie and makes it something worth watching.
All in all, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is an okay movie, but not too much more than that. I see the appeal, and I compare the feeling you get from watching this to watching The Blind Side, but just because it made me feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't necessarily mean it was great. It kind of drags, and the story just seems a little too warm and fuzzy to be believable. I recommend watching it, but don't get your hopes up for it being fantastic. I give it 6 1/2 heartwarming connections between racial and economic barriers out of 10.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Rum Diary
It seems a little odd, but sometimes I really love a movie even when it's not good. I'm not talking about so-cheesy-that-you-must-watch-how-bad-this-is movies, I'm talking about movies that are, on a critical level, not so great or so terrible, but at the same time they're so fun that you can't help but love them anyway. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was not, in my opinion, a great film, at least by many of the standards that I usually gauge movies with, but I had a blast watching the exploits of Captain Jack Sparrow anyway. The same goes, at least with me, for 2010's The A-Team remake or the Men in Black series. Well, The Rum Diary is definitely another film I can add to that group.
In Johnny Depp's second role in a film adaptation of a Hunter S. Thompson piece, he plays Kemp, a journalist based largely on Thompson's early career. Kemp is a struggling author who moves to Puerto Rico to work for The San Juan Star, and The Rum Diary is largely the story of all of the shenanigans he gets into during his short stay there. Sure, there's a story involving shady land deals by a sleazy land baron (Aaron Eckhart), a love affair with his fiance (Amber Heard), and the eventual climax of the movie involving real journalism and cockfighting, but honestly, you're not going to watch this movie for the plot. If you are, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
The good part is this: everyone, on and off camera, really sells this movie. It's incredibly absorbing. From the second he arrives in his dump of a newspaper office to the ending montage, I felt very drawn in to the world they were creating. The acting was solid, the scenery was beautiful, and the escalating amounts of trouble that Kemp finds himself in is incredibly fun to watch. Unfortunately, the story is an absolute pain to try and figure out. The film is set up to where we will see two or three different scenes, only one of which will actually be important to the plot later. The other two will be throwaway scenes involving Kemp and his associates getting themselves into trouble over some sort of cultural faux-pas or drunken misadventure. While fun to watch, it makes the flow of the story incredibly disjointed and hard to follow. Also, Amber Heard has the acting capacity of a cardboard box. Enough said about that.
I obviously cannot stress enough how much fun this movie is to watch. Yes, the flow of the story is almost frustratingly askew (and not in a good, Tarantino-ey way), but I almost didn't care at all. The Rum Diary is one of those movies that can, despite its glaring misgivings, still draw you in by just being incredibly fun, and that is what saved it from an abysmal score. I give it 7 misadventures involving Puerto Rican moonshine out of 10.
The good part is this: everyone, on and off camera, really sells this movie. It's incredibly absorbing. From the second he arrives in his dump of a newspaper office to the ending montage, I felt very drawn in to the world they were creating. The acting was solid, the scenery was beautiful, and the escalating amounts of trouble that Kemp finds himself in is incredibly fun to watch. Unfortunately, the story is an absolute pain to try and figure out. The film is set up to where we will see two or three different scenes, only one of which will actually be important to the plot later. The other two will be throwaway scenes involving Kemp and his associates getting themselves into trouble over some sort of cultural faux-pas or drunken misadventure. While fun to watch, it makes the flow of the story incredibly disjointed and hard to follow. Also, Amber Heard has the acting capacity of a cardboard box. Enough said about that.
I obviously cannot stress enough how much fun this movie is to watch. Yes, the flow of the story is almost frustratingly askew (and not in a good, Tarantino-ey way), but I almost didn't care at all. The Rum Diary is one of those movies that can, despite its glaring misgivings, still draw you in by just being incredibly fun, and that is what saved it from an abysmal score. I give it 7 misadventures involving Puerto Rican moonshine out of 10.
Friday, May 4, 2012
The Avengers
I just want to preface this by saying that it's really exciting to be up at 3:30 in the morning writing a review for a movie that I just saw the midnight premiere of. Now, on to the regularly scheduled review.
It's now May, and that means one big thing for moviegoers: summer blockbuster season is upon us. And this year kicked off with a bang: The Avengers. Since Marvel created its own studio and debuted with Iron Man in 2008, their pet project was tying together all of their subsequent movies (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger) into one climactic mega-film that will generate a lot of hype, a lot of excitement, and a lot of cash. Well, their efforts have finally come to fruition, and, for all of the legendary hype surrounding it, it did about as well as anyone could expect.
It's very hard to live up to the expectations that The Avengers was burdened with. All of the aforementioned movies (with maybe the exception of Iron Man 2) were greeted with both financial and critical acclaim, and so a movie featuring all of these iconic characters was bound to have a lot of pressure riding on it. Well, I feel that it fell a little short of the mark, but it didn't miss completely.
Let's start with the good: The Avengers does not short you on laughs or action. The movies leading up to The Avengers had a trademark wit to them that made them much more enjoyable than many of the droll, terrible Marvel films that preceded them (I'm looking right at you, Daredevil). The Avengers kicked it up a notch, though, and I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to at a superhero movie. It's not a comedy by any means, but it has enough witty one-liners sprinkled throughout to keep you on your toes. If the comedic timing doesn't keep you on your toes, however, the action sequences certainly will. As the Marvel superhero movie to end all Marvel superhero movies, The Avengers does not skimp on fight scenes. Every major character has his or her time to shine, and all of them rocked. As far as edge-of-your-seat action is concerned, this movie has some of the most spectacular and well-choreographed/animated sequences out there.
With the good highlighted, there must come the downsides of the movie. For starters, it's 2 hours and 23 minutes long, and the time isn't always put to good use. I would understand the long runtime if a lot of the time was spent developing characters past where we left them in the prequels. Instead, we get a little more development out of Captain America and Loki, and the rest is spent blowing things up and listening to Iron Man spout one-liners. While certainly entertaining, it grows old after a while, to the point of predictability. I was never expecting The Avengers to have an award-winning script, but I certainly wished that it had a little more originality to it.
Overall, The Avengers is certainly not a bad way to kick off a summer blockbuster season. With a few almost certainly terrible films on the horizon (i.e. Battleship, G.I. Joe: Retaliation), it's nice to start off with a movie that can be entertaining visually and not be an absolute pain to sit through. I give it 7 HULKSMASH's out of 10.
It's now May, and that means one big thing for moviegoers: summer blockbuster season is upon us. And this year kicked off with a bang: The Avengers. Since Marvel created its own studio and debuted with Iron Man in 2008, their pet project was tying together all of their subsequent movies (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger) into one climactic mega-film that will generate a lot of hype, a lot of excitement, and a lot of cash. Well, their efforts have finally come to fruition, and, for all of the legendary hype surrounding it, it did about as well as anyone could expect.
It's very hard to live up to the expectations that The Avengers was burdened with. All of the aforementioned movies (with maybe the exception of Iron Man 2) were greeted with both financial and critical acclaim, and so a movie featuring all of these iconic characters was bound to have a lot of pressure riding on it. Well, I feel that it fell a little short of the mark, but it didn't miss completely.
Let's start with the good: The Avengers does not short you on laughs or action. The movies leading up to The Avengers had a trademark wit to them that made them much more enjoyable than many of the droll, terrible Marvel films that preceded them (I'm looking right at you, Daredevil). The Avengers kicked it up a notch, though, and I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to at a superhero movie. It's not a comedy by any means, but it has enough witty one-liners sprinkled throughout to keep you on your toes. If the comedic timing doesn't keep you on your toes, however, the action sequences certainly will. As the Marvel superhero movie to end all Marvel superhero movies, The Avengers does not skimp on fight scenes. Every major character has his or her time to shine, and all of them rocked. As far as edge-of-your-seat action is concerned, this movie has some of the most spectacular and well-choreographed/animated sequences out there.
With the good highlighted, there must come the downsides of the movie. For starters, it's 2 hours and 23 minutes long, and the time isn't always put to good use. I would understand the long runtime if a lot of the time was spent developing characters past where we left them in the prequels. Instead, we get a little more development out of Captain America and Loki, and the rest is spent blowing things up and listening to Iron Man spout one-liners. While certainly entertaining, it grows old after a while, to the point of predictability. I was never expecting The Avengers to have an award-winning script, but I certainly wished that it had a little more originality to it.
Overall, The Avengers is certainly not a bad way to kick off a summer blockbuster season. With a few almost certainly terrible films on the horizon (i.e. Battleship, G.I. Joe: Retaliation), it's nice to start off with a movie that can be entertaining visually and not be an absolute pain to sit through. I give it 7 HULKSMASH's out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)