Avengers: Age of Ultron Movie Review

Three years ago, the long-running Marvel Cinematic Universe came to a head with The Avengers, resulting in huge critical and commercial success. After a few side stories featuring its most popular heroes, the second phase of Marvel’s timeline is nearing its conclusion; the result is Avengers: Age of Ultron, easily one of the best, if not the best offering from the studio so far.

Avengers: Age of Ultron picks up some time after Captain America: The Winter Soldier; with SHIELD abolished, the Avengers now run their base of operations from Tony Stark’s new and improved tower in New York. Everything is seemingly fine and dandy until Stark discovers an artificial intelligence inside Loki’s sceptre used in the previous Avengers film. He activates the AI to form a “suit of armour” around the world, only for it to go rogue, becoming the robotic supervillain Ultron. With an army of synthetics at his back, Ultron is bent on human extinction and the Avengers must put a stop to his diabolical plan. Kicking off with the action straight away, Avengers: Age of Ultron wastes little in upping the ante from the its predecessor; it’s leaner and meaner than the previous film, with much more at stake thanks to Ultron’s plan to destroy humanity. You feel as if the heroes really are being pushed to their limits and yet despite the darker tone, there’s still plenty of entertainment to be found in the comedic moments that break up the regular action. In addition, Age of Ultron adds other characters to the roster such as War Machine (Don Cheadle) and The Falcon (Anthony Mackie), providing useful expansions for future films. Above all else it feels that Age of Ultron succeeds at giving more of what we loved in the original, which is precisely what a great sequel needs to do.

Of course Marvel wouldn’t have its strong reputation in film without giving time for the characters to develop and Age of Ultron certainly delivers in this regard. There’s a really natural progression that has taken place through the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the chemistry between them is as strong as it’s ever been. The banter between Captain America (Chris Evans) and Tony Stark has lost none of its dramatic flair. The bonds between Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and the brother and sister duo of Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) are particular high points in terms of emotion and even Hawkeye gets much more material to work with this time around. Rounding out the film’s cast is James Spader as Ultron and though his intentions may be nefarious in nature, the filmmakers still sought to get some comedy out of him, striking a neat balance against his evil plans. Just as the plot of Avengers: Age of Ultron ups the action and comedy, so too does the cast swell in size and scope; add to that a strong progression in character arcs and you have some of the best handled characters in superhero movie history. I hope that it continues to climb higher.

The original Avengers set the bar pretty high for smack-downs featuring numerous superheroes at once, so how can Age of Ultron hope to rise above it? The simple answer is just like the plot and characterisation; up the ante in every respect and Age of Ultron is just as keen to please when it comes to the action. With a darker tone in it’s pocket, the film conveys this with significantly more gruffness while also giving the various heroes more chances to show off their abilities. Some of the new set piece moments are simply awesome, especially the gargantuan Hulkbuster suit being called in to get an indoctrinated Hulk back under control. The action is just as fast and fluid as it was before, with a wide range of camera angles ensuring that the audience never loses track of the absolute madness that often unfolds on-screen. The music also compliments the film’s tone, with a dark ambience that sweeps in when the heroes find themselves outmatched by the enemy. The technical presentation of Age of Ultron is certainly not content with sitting below the plot and actin; instead it stands alongside them to push the film’s quality even further beyond every other Marvel film before it.

Just when you think a series like the Marvel Cinematic Universe couldn’t get any better, along comes a film that pushes it over the top, ranking it amongst the very best of superhero films. If you liked the first Avengers then everything you loved is still here; if you’re expecting better things from the sequel then Age of Ultron will no doubt deliver in spades.

Rating: 5/5 Stars

Post-Viewing: Why has the quality of Fast and Furious endured?

The Fast and Furious series is one of the most long-lasting modern film franchises, not to mention the only one of its kind to focus its full attention on high speed racing and stunts placed against searing hot locations. If you’ve seen the films like I have, you’ll know exactly what you’re getting when you go to see one at the cinema; it’s generally a similar premise with similar characters. It sounds an awful lot like another, far less appreciable action franchise that has raked in billions; Transformers. As some of you have seen from my review of Age of Extinction, that franchise as a whole (aside from the original) is a complete wreak, never rising above awful quality and yet being able to make enormous profits.

So what makes a loud and often dumb premise so likeable in Fast and Furious when it has become so loathsome in other franchises like Transformers? It all starts with the characters; action films with likeable characters and magnetic personalities can go a long way towards making themselves more memorable and entertaining. Whilst the characters in Transformers are often basic clichés and stereotypes that receive no kind of development whatsoever, Fast and Furious makes use of simple archetypes that are maintained over each theme. The acting and dialogue are far from Oscar worthy, but the actors in Fast and Furious all do a fine job of selling the characters and they also take them on their own individual journeys throughout the franchise.

The Fast and Furious series started off as a relatively average series which earned a reasonable amount from fans of fast cars and street racing. In the years since, the series has moved away from these basic situations to do all manners of inventive stunts and scenarios. The ever increasing budget of the series has allowed the filmmakers to go wild with creativity and with a title like Fast and Furious, there’s all kinds of things that can be done. From Fast and Furious 5 onwards, we’ve seen some really imaginative moments from the bank heist to a car airdrop and this has allowed the series to continuously thrill. Rather than recycling the same action sequences over and over again, the filmmakers always come up with a crazy new idea rather than a pointless gimmick and it’s this trait that keeps audiences coming back for more.

If the Fast and Furious series is to continue for another three films then I hope it continues to rise, rather than lower in quality; with that said, Furious 7’s financial and critical success was undoubtedly expanded by the passing and subsequent tribute to Paul Walker and the question still remains as to whether or not the budget will rise and allow for sustained creativity. On the other hand, some argue that it may be more respectful to end the series here at number 7, but of course the need for profits nearly always supersedes that choice.

(Images sourced from Flickr, via creative commons license)

Fast and Furious 7 Movie Review

(Original article on CultNoise: http://www.cultnoise.com/fast-and-furious-7-a-rip-roaring-good-time/)

For over ten years now the Fast and Furious series has delivered the best and most entertaining flavour of modern car chases and yet despite outlasting every other racing franchise out there, it’s still been able to consistently entertain and thrill. With Fast and Furious 7, the franchise has reached its highest peak yet, delivering high octane thrills that somehow keep getting better with each new release.

Picking up where Fast 6 left off, the seventh entry in the series sees Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his band of brothers dealing with new villain Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) who is seeking revenge for the beating they gave to his little brother in the previous film. After Shaw makes his presence felt by killing Han (Sung Kang) in Tokyo, Dom’s team sets out once more to track down Deckard and keep their friends and family safe. They aren’t alone however as they’re backed up by government forces led by Kurt Russel’s Frank Petty who makes his debut in the series alongside returning favourites. The franchise’s break-neck pace is all full effect here, only slowing down to allow the characters to get some simple yet strong drama across. It’s a formula that has worked wonders for the past few films in the series and it’s working even better here; you really do believe in the bonds that bind the characters together, especially if you’ve been following the series up to now. Furious 7 crosses over several locations across its run-time from the streets of Los Angeles to the deserts of Abu Dhabi, adding a far greater variety than its predecessors. The final aspect of the film is a farewell to Paul Walker (who died in a car crash in 2013 during production); a montage of shots across the series which serve a fitting and heartfelt conclusion to the actor’s career and best known role. Fast and Furious 7 has plenty to offer for the action enthusiast, but it also takes plenty of time to balance it out with the more intimate moments.

Fast and Furious 7 continues the series trend of producing characters with magnetic personalities and the main cast is once again seamless in fitting into their archetypes. Dominic and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) receive an increased amount of focus this time around, allowing their chemistry to shine through more than ever. The comedy from Tyrese Gibson and Chris “Ludacris” Bridges is still wildly entertaining, providing a neat reprieve from the action. Kurt Russel brings a fair bit of laidback charisma to Frank Petty, which slots in fairly well alongside the main cast, even if he has little development throughout the film. Finally, there’s Jason Statham’s debut as Deckard Shaw; which ends up being a performance of two halves; while his physicality and stunt work continues to impress, it’s a shame that he isn’t doing very much to set Deckard apart from the numerous other action roles he’s played other the years. While the villains aren’t exactly that memorable in terms of acting prowess, the likeable characters who we’ve been following for over ten years now go far to carry the film.

It’s always a risky move when a franchise moves to a new director, but in this case James Wan, a filmmaker better known for horror films Saw and The Conjuring has done a great job of filling the boots of Justin Lin. The action sequences of Fast and Furious 7 are just as awe-inspiring and entertaining as they’ve ever been; it’s as if the filmmakers inject a different dose of inventiveness and creativity into each film. You’ve likely already seen a glimpse of the chase through the Caucasus mountain range but that’s only the tip of the iceberg; we have car duels, we have air-to-ground combat and a vast majority of these have all been accomplished using real stunt-work and choreography, making the sequences all the more engaging. Though it occasionally delves into a fair bit of camera-shaking here and there, the action itself is mostly well-framed and viewable, ensuring that the sequences don’t lose their impact. The sound design is also firing on all cylinders like it always has in the series; although the seemingly endless use of rap music is definitely wearing out its welcome at this point. Ultimately, the presentation of Fast and Furious does have a few flaws here and there, but it proves that there is still no other series quite like it when it comes to high speed action.

Fast and Furious 7 was a pleasant surprise for me in many ways; the well put together tribute to Paul Walker and likeable characters are strong starting points, but the film goes far beyond that. It’s quite astounding that the franchise’s action and stunts continue to push the envelope despite utilising the same, fairly basic premise seven films in. There’s sure to be more road rage on the way, but for now, Fast and Furious 7 can stake a claim as the best in the long-running series.

Rating: 4/5 Stars

5 Niggling Things: Mass Effect 3

I’ve been a huge fan of the Mass Effect series ever since 2 arrived on PlayStation 3 in 2011; with its deep world, imaginative and detailed characters and ever-refined action, it has become one trilogy which I always go back to despite playing it several times to completion. But of course every game has its irritating moments and now it’s time for the controversial third game to go under the microscope. Before you ask me in the comments, no I’m not talking about the ending or any of its story components. I like to think that we all moved on from that debacle years ago; it’s better to put that to rest. For now, here are five niggling things in Mass Effect 3.

1. A lack of new gameplay scenarios

As the final act of the trilogy, a lot of focus was placed on the ending to Commander Shepherd’s story and the more action focused gameplay in marketing. In and amongst the enormous hype that built up, long-term fans were concerned that Bioware wasn’t adding very much to switch up the overall gameplay. Upon the game’s release in 2012, this section of the fanbase was met with a fair bit of disappointment and so was I after playing through the game multiple times. While the game itself is still really enjoyable and the new refinements such as evasive rolls add new tactics to combat, I can’t help but wish Bioware had been more ambitious; if they had been given more time to develop the game, they could have come up with some awesome ideas. Space combat anyone? There’s plenty of it in Mass Effect 3 that’s restricted to cut-scenes; rather than getting a game over, the Normandy could instead enter a 3D environment to take on the Reaper ships which may or may not succeed depending on the upgrades you purchased for the ship. Other gameplay traits have been ironed out in a bid to appeal to a wider audience; as strange as it may sound, I miss the hacking mini-games in Mass Effect 2. These could have been given more urgency; what if you took control of EDI for a short duration and had to break into secure systems, only this time with enemy forces attempting to stop you. Mass Effect 3’s action focused gameplay was a blast to play, but for the next game Bioware should work to better balance this with some solid RPG systems.

2. A general sloppiness to the multiplayer

Say what you will about Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer being a complete grind; the chance to play as the new characters and races were motivating enough for me to plough through the mostly samey horde mode matches. My issue lies with the little things that make multiplayer rather irksome at times. Connection problems often occur, more so when I’m joining, rather than hosting a match; I’m not sure whether this is down to net code, peer-to-peer servers (when players share in-game resources) or personal connection but it can interfere with a game, especially on higher difficulties. The issue of kill-steals is also bothersome as well; the balance of weapon damage and time-to-kill could be polished up, giving the kill to the player who dealt the most damage. Lastly there’s the issue of waiting for other players which messes with the menu system. Once a match has concluded, you’ll often have to wait a few moments for all the players to return to the lobby; this can cause you to completely skip over an opportunity to assign skill points if the lobby enters into another match. In the end, Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer is a good first try, but I’m hoping that Bioware has the time and resources to polish it up for the next game in the series.

3. Diana Allers (aka Jessica Chobot)

It was pretty questionable for many fans and it’s questionable for me as well; just what was Jessica Chobot doing in Mass Effect 3? Why does her character model look nowhere near as detailed as any of the others? These questions and many others have never been answered three years on; I’ve never had anything against her personally, but her inclusion in Bioware’s RPG series left me scratching my head. True, players do have the option to allow her to contribute to the war assets by carrying out interviews but honestly, she’s probably the most underdeveloped character in the entire series thus far. I would have rather had Emily Wong, who is nowhere to be found in Mass Effect 3, despite having a presence in the previous games. 

Mass Effect 3: Vindicated, a brilliant and incredibly comprehensive document that redesigns many aspects of Mass Effect 3 (Take a look at it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/200900804/MassEffect3Vindication-v1-1-16-14-GerryPugliese) has proven that minor characters such as Khalisah Bint Sinan al-Jilani can be integrated quite well into the overall narrative, so why not replace Allers with Emily Wong? It would make for an interesting moral choice; do you go with Wong (Paragon), a reporter who would stick to the facts? Or do you choose Khalisah (Renegade), a tabloid journalist who would definitely do much to make an evil Commander Shepherd look better in the eyes of galactic society? I believe it would go a long way towards maintaining the player’s immersion in the world, rather than random real world individuals intruding into it.

4. The war assets and their basic purpose

Over the course of Mass Effect 3’s campaign, you’ll be collecting war assets by scanning planets and of course, making tough choices over which races to support; these all carry numeric values which feed into effective military strength (EMS) and in turn this determines the ending you’ll get. But outside feeding into your effective military strength, what exactly do these collectables do? Disappointingly, they really don’t factor into much else; all they are at the end of the day is static images with point totals that don’t really offer much incentive for collection besides getting the best ending. If Bioware had been given more time to develop Mass Effect 3, the war assets could have played a far greater role. Imagine if you were charting a course through No Man’s Land in the final mission and came across an obstacle; what if a military asset such as the Volus bombers could be commanded to fly in and clear it out at the risk of losing it? The same could also go for the space battles mentioned earlier; if the Normandy is overwhelmed by the Reapers in one system then a fleet could be called in at the risk of it suffering damage to its point value. That would make the missions far more open-ended and dynamic in the way the war assets may or may not survive certain encounters depending on the readiness rating and EMS. It would take a lot of programming and some really creative minds to make something like this work in Mass Effect, but it could really change and expand the series.

5. A knock on technical presentation

Mass Effect 2 was an incredibly polished title; aside from an annoying save bug (which was remedied with a patch) and a few stiff animations, the game rarely booted you out of its absorbing world and story. So what happened with Mass Effect 3? The technical presentation, at least on the PlayStation 3 version took a big step back from its predecessor. There are many instances where the game pauses for a brief moment to load, character models take longer to load in and the loading screens are more widespread and less aesthetically ambitious. While the technical issues aren’t as bad as those in Mass Effect 1, it is a noticeable drop in polish; the game even crashed on several occasions, most notably the end of the Cerberus Coup and the final stretch of Cronos Station. Again, this is down to development time; Electronic Arts gave Bioware two years to develop the game, as opposed to three for Mass Effect 2 and this left little time to iron out the remaining technical issues. Here’s hoping the same mistake isn’t repeated for Mass Effect 4.

Nightcrawler Movie Review

Neo-Noir is a very interesting genre; when used correctly it can add a much needed spice to film, especially where the crime drama is concerned. Nightcrawler, the latest effort into this field is a welcome new addition, mixing an atmospheric premise with a hint of media ethics and the drive of competition.

Nightcrawler is all about Louis Bloom; a conning sociopath who is looking for a way to make his fortune; as luck would have it, he stumbles across a group of freelance cameraman who get close-up footage on crimes in progress and sell it to local news agencies (nightcrawling). With a trusty employee in tow (played by Riz Ahmed), Bloom begins his foray into freelancing and crime journalism, all the while hiding his background behind a wall of well-rehearsed professional chit-chat. Taking place mostly at night, the film focuses on both Blooms’ incursions into crime scenes and his bartering with the likes of news director Nina Romina (Rene Russo). What makes Nightcrawler so engaging is its build-up; as Bloom’s competition and desire to earn soars higher, his tactics and crime scenes grow more risky and intense. There are some really restless moments later on in the film and once the police begin to play a larger role, audiences simply won’t be able to take their eyes off the film’s proceedings. The film also delves into a few ethical issues in journalism including the presentation of graphic content, and the need for accuracy in the media. These issues never overshadow the central plot, which leads me to its only weakness; the ending. It sort of clunks to a fairly unsatisfying conclusion where there isn’t any real consequence to the things Bloom does over the course of the film. While this is a disappointment, the journey the audience takes with the protagonist is certainly engaging, even if he’s not exactly the one you would root for in a film of this style.

At the centre of Nightcrawler is Jake Gyllenhaal, who really does go a long way towards carrying the entire film. There’s a two-sided approach to his performance which really captures the nature of his character; on the one hand he puts on deceiving look of professionalism, marking himself as someone who takes his work very seriously, while on the other he obsesses over his work to an almost psychotic degree. He’s not a character that you necessarily support; instead you’re endlessly intrigued by his exploits and deeds over the course of the film.  If there’s one caveat to Bloom’s character, it’s that his central motivation is relatively simplistic; he simply wants money and will cheat anyone to get to it. While this doesn’t impact Gyllenhaal’s performance, it feels a bit lacking considering how he’s introduced as a thief and trespasser. Some of the side characters are also relatively underdeveloped; because Gyllenhaal’s acting is so strong, the supporting actors (most notably Bill Paxton as Bloom’s main rival Joe Loder) feel pretty basic by comparison. This is less true of Rene Russo who brings a spark of charismatic flair to the news director archetype. Other than that, Nightcrawler’s characters are competent, albeit fairly basic given the realistic setting.

Thanks to a great central performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler stands out as a solid, well produced thriller. While some of the characters could be more developed and the ending is quite underwhelming, the film’s neo-noir style and strong pacing more than make up for its shortcomings.

 

Rating: 3.5/5 Stars