The Avengers: A Second Look

Thanks again to James the Movie Reviewer (my Number One Fan by default, given he's my only fan) for the suggestion.

Alas, poor Joss Whedon...

When I looked at the films of 2012, The Avengers was not in my Top Ten Films of the Year.

The Avengers was not in my Top Twenty Films of the Year.

The Avengers was in my Top Twenty-Five Films of the Year...at Number Twenty-Four.

In a year that gave us Argo, The Life of Pi, Zero Dark Thirty, and The Sessions, could I really put The Avengers above any of them, let alone ALL of them?

The curious thing about The Avengers is that I was quite enthusiastic about it.  I thought it was a very good movie, but I also thought it was rather long and perhaps too self-referential.  One thing I didn't think The Avengers was was the Citizen Kane of comic book adaptations, the greatest comic book film of all time.  I still think Superman: The Movie holds that distinction.

This isn't to say The Avengers was in any way terrible (though I still have a few hang-ups about it).  However, given just how beloved the film is, I was asked if perhaps I was underselling it a bit.  Perhaps it does deserve to be ranked with Superman or Batman or Spider-Man as among the best of all time, a true masterpiece.  I think the beef is not that I didn't like it (which I did).  It's that I didn't like it enough.  More than one person has told me how wrong I was to not rank it higher, to accept that in terms of comic-book films, The Avengers is among if not the greatest of all time.

I saw a bit of it while at the gym one day and was reminded how good The Avengers was.  However, that was just about a half-hour's worth of viewing and it was in the middle of the movie, not straight from the beginning.  Would reencountering it again after so many years remake my own thinking of the film?  Would I be able to sit through nearly two-and-a-half hours of explosions and characters whom I remembered with varying degrees of certainty?  Now, with me about to watch The Avengers: Age of Ultron, I figured it would be fine time to revisit The Avengers and see if my views have changed.

Let us begin...

As I rewatched The Avengers, I first dismissed what had been a criticism of mine: people would get lost.  I figure if you hadn't taken the time to watch any of the Marvel films, you weren't going to be leaping at the chance to watch The Avengers.  In short, The Avengers expects you to have some knowledge of what came before.  For good or bad, you should know some of the characters by the time you get to The Avengers.

However, that brings me to something that I didn't think of the first time I saw it.  Again, for better or worse, people have pretty much forgotten The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton as the Hulk (and let's not even get into the Eric Bana/Ang Lee Hulk).  As such, if you'd skipped it, would having Mark Ruffalo's version essentially making a second debut be an issue?   I found it curious that in The Avengers, we basically were introduced to Bruce Banner/The Hulk without it being a big problem.  In fact, perhaps we could really skip The Incredible Hulk and consider The Avengers the debut of our Big Mean Green (a little UNT reference there).

That doesn't take away from the fact that The Avengers essentially serves as a full introduction to Hawkeye.  Apart from a cameo in Thor (one that threw me so off I asked the person next to me, 'What's Jeremy Renner doing in this?'), has he played a major role in the Marvel Universe?  Same goes for Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow (and did we really have to see her for the first time being held hostage and slapped around?  I don't think Agent Carter would have stood for that!) 

Finally, let's get to the whole 'Loki taken prisoner' thing.  OK, by now this has become a cliché that it amazes me people still think its original.  When someone is being held prisoner in the middle of the film, we know they want to get captured to make a more spectacular exit. 

Skyfall, anyone?   

This doesn't take away from the brilliance of The Avengers.  A second viewing clearly shows that Joss Whedon did an incredible job balancing so much not just in terms of characters (giving everyone at least one moment) but also between action and even comedy.  The best scene in my view is when Loki is about to give another one of his grandiose monologues about his own greatness and the failure of the puny humans when the Hulk just grabs him by the legs and thrashes him around, leaving the Asgardian so stunned he can only whimper in total shock at the end. 

I also still feel the emotion when Agent Coulson (who has always been my favorite Marvel character) is stabbed.  I still hold Clark Gregg should have been a Best Supporting Actor nominee for the role.  Alas, people rarely get nods, let alone wins, for comic-book based films.  Curiously, the last time I can think of when a comic-book based film received major Oscar recognition was in 1931!  The film, Skippy, based on a comic strip, earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Jackie Cooper for Best Actor (making him, at age nine, the youngest Best Actor nominee in Academy history), and won Best Director.

When did the Academy turn so snobbish?

So, let's go over The Avengers.  Is a great film?  Yes.  Does it deserve great praise?  Yes.  HOWEVER, I still feel a little removed from it because I'm not as well-versed in Marvel lore as others.  Even after having watched all the Marvel movies (even The Incredible Hulk), I would have absolutely no idea who the villain popping up at the end would be.  Perhaps it doesn't matter that I know who he is or even if the Marvel fans know who he is.  It's just a teaser for something else.  Whether it is for something greater or not I cannot say.  I don't want to think of The Avengers or any other Marvel film as just a two-hour-plus trailer for something else. 

Ultimately, I can see myself giving The Avengers a more modified bump up, but not to the lofty heights of Superman or Spider-Man or Batman.  It actually is coming in fast & furious to join their ranks, and it really comes really close.  However, while the other ones were at least self-contained, The Avengers, being part of this grand epic, still is a bit separate for me.  At least, in retrospect, it IS better than Les Miserables.

So close, so close...

ORIGINAL DECISION: B-

REEVALUATED DECISION: B+

Spider-Man 2: A Second Look

Thanks to James the Movie Reviewer (as we lovingly call him, Our Only Reader) for the recommendation.

Ah, Spider-Man 2. 

Few films have left me with a contradictory, conflicting view at each viewing as Spider-Man 2.  There are some films that I love every time I watch them (Casablanca, It's A Wonderful Life, Singin' in the Rain, Citadel, Hugo, The Spectacular Now, Jane Eyre).  There are films I loath every time I see them (The Hangover Part II, Spider-Man 3, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Superman Returns).

Then there is Spider-Man 2.

The first time I saw it, I completely loved it.  I thought it good but not as great as Spider-Man (which I consider one of the greatest comic-book adaptations ever).  I did, however, go through an emotional roller-coaster that took me days to recover from.  It was good enough to make me super-hyped about Spider-Man 3.

The second time I saw it, I completely hated it.  Doc Ock as a good guy?  A lot of plot slamming into each other?  I wondered whether my enthusiasm for the character clouded my view of the film.

The third time I saw it for a Spider-Man retrospective, both my enthusiasm and my disdain were tempered to where I thought it a good but not great film.  That is why I gave it a barely passing grade of C+, which is good but not great. 

Now comes the fourth time I enter the second chapter of the adventures of our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.  Would I see it as the classic I first thought it?  Would I rediscover the reasons for my antagonism?  Would I still struggle to think it worth elevating to a higher level, sink it even lower, or perhaps still remain ambivalent on it? 

Well...

What I see now, I see not with the eyes of a Spidey fan, but with the eyes of an analytical film reviewer, one who isn't going to let emotion sway his views.  With Spider-Man 2, I saw far too much comedy, particularly in the first 2/3rds of the film, that I felt took too much away and took up too much time.  It's as if Sam Raimi was just afraid to make a serious comic-book film and wanted to show how 'fun' everything is.  We started with a long and I think unfunny bit with Peter Parker attempting to deliver pizzas the distance of 42 blocks in 7 & 1/2 minutes.  I says to myself, 'that can't be done'.  I says to myself, 'him coming in through the closet at the end is stretching this out'. I says to myself, 'I'm not laughing'.   

Again and again sometimes really good moments brought down by a stab at comedy that I think took away from things.

A plot point (which kept popping in and out) was how Spider-Man kept losing his powers, almost always at the worst possible moments.  This led to two moments that I thought were wasted opportunities.  The first is when Spidey is forced to take the elevator.  The whole thing could have been cut without affecting the story.  Spider-Man could have taken the stairs.  He could have changed into Peter's clothes to avoid such an embarrassing moment.  But NOOOO.... It had to be there because we all wanted a laugh.  Maybe I laughed the first time.  I haven't since.

The second and worse moment for me was when Peter gets his confidence and some of his powers.  He leaps from the building and yells, "I'm BACK!"  I was so happy at that moment: my Spidey WAS back.  Wouldn't you know it: he comes crashing down to Earth, and ends with him clutching his back and saying, "My Back!" 

I don't know.  I guess people find this funny.  I didn't.

There were parts that I did find funny that I don't think were meant to be.  When Doc Ock takes poor Aunt May, the entire battle between Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus had me laughing for all the wrong reasons.  One thing I didn't think worked was when we had a heavily-accented Asian woman singing the Spider-Man theme song.  Leaving apart that it wasn't funny, it struck me as almost racist; the heavily-accented Mr. Ditkovich, who listened to klezmer music (which is Jewish folk music), didn't sit well with me either.  It was dangerously close to being anti-Semitic. 

There were also other aspects besides the heavy reliance on comedy that made me cold towards Spider-Man 2.  Raimi, maker of The Evil Dead films (the first I think involving a tree raping a woman if memory serves correct), I think went back to his roots when Doc Ock first unleashed his fury on the medical team operating on him.  I thought the whole thing looked like a horror film.  I was surprised a bit at how Raimi used the trappings of a horror film in a film geared towards comic-book fans (some of whom are children).

My view is that Spider-Man 2 was so sprawling that it seemed to grow for no real reason.  I disliked how heavy-handed the movie was with the Mary Jane/Peter relationship (not to mention the fiancée that served no real purpose apart from giving a conflict that I didn't think was there).  I disliked Danny Elfman's score, which was also heavy-handed (did we really need a big choir when Otto Octavius' machine first appears?  It's not like we don't get that it's dangerous).  I found Kirsten Dunst a bit weak and pathetic.  I found James Franco a bit whiny and not good at all (I think he wasn't acting so much as just reciting the words with little conviction).  I disliked that the conflict within Peter Parker was so drawn-out. 

As for Octavius, I agree with my friend Fidel Gomez, Jr. (who may or may not be dead): turning him into a sympathetic character wasn't a good idea.  Granted, I appreciate that Spider-Man 2 was going for something different, but I think there could have been a better way to show that he wasn't in control of himself.  Sometimes he was oh so evil.  Sometimes he was oh so nice. 

It wasn't until Octavius and Harry join forces that I felt the film picked up, and from that point onwards I was interested.  Up to then, only the scene where Peter confesses to Aunt May about how Uncle Ben died was a standout.  In that scene, I did feel emotion, I did see Rosemary Harris and Tobey Maguire act and Sam Raimi direct.   Once we got to when we had a real antagonist and a real protagonist then we got a movie.  Before that, it was a long stretch.

As a side note, how exactly did Peter talk Harry into letting him go?  A simple punch would have been enough, but Spider-Man 2 never answered how, after capturing Spider-Man, Harry Osborn didn't do anything with him?

Once we had the battle on the elevated train, we had a movie that picked up steam (no pun intended). From that point onwards, I actually cared about what was happening.  The movie actually came alive.  However, almost everything prior to that felt long, tired, unfunny, and boring.

Now that I've seen Spider-Man 2 for the fourth time, I can say that yes, it is better than either Amazing Spider-Man film (and I'm not sad to see Andrew Garfield go, though I still hold out hope that Dylan O'Brien, and not Logan Lerman, will be the new Spidey, not another British guy).  I think Spider-Man 2 is not in the same league as Spider-Man, but is infinitely better than Spider-Man 3. 

However, I also think Spider-Man 2 is too long, too reliant on comedy, and doesn't pick up until the last third of the movie.  If it weren't for that, the film would have failed completely.  It's lucky I thought the last third was good, otherwise, I would have been one of the few negative reviews.

As a result, I see no reason to alter my original score.

Sorry, Pete.  My Spidey-sense says you're barely OK.

ORIGINAL DECISION: C+

REEVALUATED DECISION: C+

X-Men First Class: A Second Look

As part of Rick's Café Texan's Fifth Anniversary celebrations, I invited people to look over my various reviews and tell me if I should revisit them.  James the Movie Reviewer (as he's known around here, My Only Reader) pointed me towards a few films.  One of the films he suggested was X-Men: First Class.  I had given First Class a mildly negative review of C-, and he thought I ranked it too low. 

Now, I have revisited First Class after three years when I saw it in the theaters.  Have I changed my mind, or have I solidified my view?  Even worse, have I actually found First Class to be worse the second time round and given it a lower grade?

Well, I don't feel the need to go over the plot because this isn't a review of the movie itself; instead, this is a reevaluation of both the film and my review.  For that, I am looking over my review and the movie to see if I hit or missed the mark.

The definition of "frienemies"...

One thing that I appreciate now that I didn't when watching the first time was that X-Men: First Class was not as disorganized as I'd remembered it.  It certainly is still a long movie (and I still think a bit longer than it should have been) but I no longer think its jumbled, hopping from one point to another without much sense.  I think my objection came from the fact that Erik and Charles took a long time getting together for a common goal, and especially because a good chunk of the first act is devoted to Erik's Nazi Hunter episodes. 

Some things were also clearer the second time around.  Sebastian Shaw's status as a mutant himself, which I had missed or maybe misheard, was now clear.  Another thing that I did get wrong is the story.  At first, I thought it was so sprawling that it wasn't really telling one.  Now I see that it had a good story (Sebastian's desire to kill all non-mutants and rule over the mutants left alive), even if still it took a long time getting there.   In retrospect as well, the training montage now seems clearer and more clever than when I first saw it, and also includes great insight into Xavier's worldview, even serving as a bit of a mentor to the deeply emotionally wounded Erik.

One thing that had bothered me (the fun and games of the Junior mutants until Shaw storms the CIA compound) doesn't bother me that much.  I still think it slowed the film a bit, but not stop it dead cold.  I don't know if I liked the idea of killing off the CIA agents so quickly, but it doesn't annoy me as it had previously.  However, the "If you're not with me, you're against me" line (which now seems to be de rigueur for "I'm quoting George W. Bush, so I must be evil because he is") still annoys me, not because I'm pro-Bush but because it takes a simplistic view to the President's meaning (that there can be no neutrality when it comes to fighting tyranny); just like ACT-UP believed "Silence = Death" in the battle against AIDS, so President Bush believed that silence or willing non-cooperation meant you lent support or sympathy to Islamofascism.  It may not be the case, but today that "You're either with me or against me" line is too easy to use and misuse.

Of course, there are things that I remembered from my original evaluation that I still stand by.  The score still cues the emotions and tries too hard to tell us what is happening/going to happen (it becomes menacing when something bad is going to happen).  I don't like it when music blasts out what my reactions should be instead of trusting me to 'get it'. 

Also, I still think First Class is still longer than it should or could be.  Despite two viewings I still couldn't figure out who some of the characters were (such as Riptide or Havok), and for those of us not into the world of X-Men, it can be a little confusing.  I still hold to the idea that Angel's conversion to the Dark Side was still rather quick, and again...did they really have to kill the black guy first?

Finally, while the sets were great, did they really have to make a version of Dr. Strangelove's "War Room"?

A Second Look at X-Men: First Class revealed that the movie is slightly better than I remembered it.  I think my dislike came from its length and from the fact that it took a long time getting to where it was going.  I still don't think I would have applauded at the end of the movie, but now I see it closer to X-Men than X-Men: The Last Stand.  Should I rank the X-Men franchise, I would put First Class fourth (after X-2: X-Men United, X-Men, and X-Men: Days of Future Past) and the last good X-Men film rather than the first bad X-Men film.

To sum up, my opinion of X-Men: First Class has gone up.  Congratulations...you passed and can move up.

ORIGINAL DECISION: C-

REEVALUATED DECISION: B-