The Avengers - Age of Ultron

The Avengers - Age of Ultron

Non-spoiler information

Date watched: 5/12/2015

My rating: 6/10

The count of times I have seen this at time of this review: 1st

Likelihood that I will watch this movie again: Probably

I classify this as a comic book movie

Marginal movie of this genre that I rate above this: X-Men X2

Marginal movie of this genre that I rate lower then this: Spider-Man

The follow-up to the smash hit Avengers, this movie picks up from the plot lines of that movie, as well as several of the "solo-shot" Avenger movies such as Captain America: Winter Soldier. This movie continues to build the Avenger world carefully, perhaps a bit too carefully.

Scroll down for spoiler information
































Spoiler information

I enjoyed this movie, especially the references to the coming conflict with Thanos and the Infinity Gems / Gauntlet. However, that strength also is a weakness: how much buildup can there be, without some deflation, or missing the target? I will make my point in several different examples.

The first is the invulnerability of most of the characters. In the first movie, Hawkeye was temporarily subverted by Loki, and Agent Phil Coulson was (apparently) killed. As a fan of comics, one of my biggest complaints is that no one really dies. If a character is viewed as interesting, the character will be resurrected or brought back to life in some manner. My case in point is Gwen Stacy. For decades, Marvel resisted bringing her back to life, but finally their "collective will" was broken and they just couldn't help themselves. They did the same thing by bringing Agent Coulson (a well liked character) back in Agents of Shield. What this means is that there is no real pathos or grief when a character dies - we don't know if they are really dead, and we don't want to be fooled by their death. Several major characters have suffered death in the comics, only to be brought back to life again after a discrete amount of time (mourning?).

The second is measuring the power of these characters, and then conveying that to the audience. This is almost always done in contests of prowess. Unfortunately, these are so subjective and almost impossible to measure except in death or dismemberment.  Perhaps this is why these movies always escalate to some grand destruction (the wholesale mayhem that occurred in the city in the first Avengers and then the somehow topped mayhem of lifting an entire city from the ground in this show). The problem for me, is that I then don't identify with the characters. Take for instance Quicksilver in this show: he dominates a couple of the Avengers early on and from my position, I was wondering why he didn't just finish off the whole team? Then, in the casualties of the mayhem, they kill him off. Why? He wasn't quick enough - but he was faster then anyone else on the team, and they come off without a scratch (figuratively, not literally as one of the best ways of showing that the heroes have suffered is to scratch up their shield paint, or tear their uniform). I know that we are supposed to swallow incongruities like this left and right to enjoy superhero movies, but sometimes it comes too close to the surface to ignore.

The third is actually the culminations of the ideas I presented in the first two. In real life, we do at times build to a crescendo of doom, but how do we identify with or make context with a cosmic being that will be engaging with the team in the near future? The comics usually deal with this by reducing the main story to a dialogue between a few characters. For instance, in the comic version of the Infinity Gauntlet released in 1991, Thanos is the main antagonist, with the Silver Surfer being his main foil. Other characters became part of the tapestry. This allows us to examine the mind of Thanos and the Silver Surfer and build their story together. This seems to be highly unlikely to happen with the pending conflict. We will be dealing with a large cast of characters, in 120 - 180 minutes. The Avengers have succeeded so far because they have developed their characters back stores and such in their own movies (except Hawkeye and Black Widow). Then they weave their stories with the main movie, as they did with this one and its predecessor. The problem is that they have grown the cast of characters, and hinted a change of the team for the future.

The inevitable result (for me) is that the build-up leads to a bust. In this movie, the only time Ultron really presents much menace is at the beginning, when he is in a twisted shell of a form, and the Avengers are caught flat footed (because of the machinations of Tony Stark and to a lesser extent, Bruce Banner). After that scene, Ultron no longer seems very threatening. Sure, he throws a seemingly endless stream of bots at the Avengers, but none of them are worthy of him. Also, Ultron chooses to keep his same form and doesn't really surprise. I found it a little hard to believe that the Avengers actually had a safe house that he couldn't find.

Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable movie to watch. The highlight for me is the offline conversations that occur - the surprising relationship development of Banner and Romanoff; the tension between Tony Stark and Thor, and the around the table camaraderie of them all, culminating in them each doing the "Excalibur" challenge with Thor's hammer.