Skip to main content

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War
(2018)

(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a foregone conclusion and then discover there isn’t an audience to justify that conclusion). Avengers: Infinity War wouldn’t have had to worry about the second, given Marvel's command of the market place, but many of the issues arising from the back-to-back approach continue to thrive unchecked in the Russo brothers third feature for the studio.



There have been other cases – the opportunism of the Salkinds with The Three and Four Musketeers and Superman and Superman II, Tarantino's unwieldy behemoth Kill Bills, the milking-the-cash-cow approach of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Parts I and II, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Parts I and II and The Hobbitses, the contrasting Fifty Shades approach of striking while the iron is yet lukewarm, the lessons of Divergent being foremost in the mind – but those intended to be an end unto themselves are relatively few. They tend to have in common an overly episodic, untidy structure and a tonal break with the original (read: they're darker), while anticipating momentous events for the final chapter that never quite materialise. 


Infinity War is somewhat different in terms of how and when it arrives, since the Marvel juggernaut will continue to obliterate all in its path long after Avengers 4, but like the Back to the Futures, Matrixes and Pirates, it is intended as a line in the sand. I’m a fan of all three of those series second instalments, while finding the third parts a disappointment in each case, to a greater or lesser extent, and they have in common being conceived in a manner where the joins still show. Unlike the first Star Wars, where both subsequent outings are distinct enough that one can buy into both their unity and progressive change, the regrouping to gather together an ongoing story between one and two is very evident, and the issues with planning that out over two pictures aren’t really resolved in any of the cases (in Back to the Future's, the decision to ignore much of the thematic content for a western jaunt is simultaneously both frivolously engaging and climactically disappointing).


Here, as with Civil War before it, the picture comes with a loose foothold in the preceding comic book – specifically The Infinity Gauntlet –  but even given my ignorance of that plot (aside from a handy Wiki synopsis), it's clear from the structure of this first part that the second movie relies on a reset for its resolution, thus undoing much in the way of tension (you don't permanently kill off new-ish heroes such as Black Panther, Doctor Strange and Peter Quill, ones with further promised adventures, so the viewer is instantly clued into this being a big cheat). If that sucks some of the air out of the room, perhaps the potential of some sort of "permanent" self-sacrifice of one or more original Avenger (since Tony, Thor, Cap and Hulk are left standing – Natasha and Hawkeye are alive, but let’s face it they don’t count, the latter because he’s only namechecked and the former because, even by her standards, she’s never been more superfluous, or faintly ridiculous – miraculously able to cut the mustard against super-sized and overpowered bad guys on the battlefield) instils some kind of enticement for Part II, but I can't say I was left on tenterhooks for what will happen next, any more than the "Well, that about wraps it up" feeling I got at the end of The Last Jedi. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely need to produce a rabbit – and I don't mean a Rocket – out of a hat if they’re going to surprise audiences in Avengers 4.


I suspect some were disappointed by the Russos' recent promise that no alternate realities will impress themselves upon the proceedings, and I admit it might have been quite fun to see old hands playing mirror universe versions of themselves à la Infinity War the comic. But if this merely underlines a sense of predictability for what will transpire next, Infinity War itself is a mix of both the well-worn and the occasionally surprising. We’re already well-versed in the pleasure of separate solo movie characters interacting for the first time, and some here reap particular dividends despite that diminishing-returns familiarity, most notably the encounter between Thor and the Guardians (that scene is a giddily effective succession of gags and one-liners, such that you’re left slightly exhausted in its wake; no matter what spectacle ensues, it can never quite equal it). 


The significant role of Stephen Strange here was a pleasant surprise, but I never quite felt his interaction with other superheroes clicked, especially the one he was squared against: Tony Stark. But then, as big a fan as I've been of Downey Jr’s contribution to the MCU, even as his predominance has been an increasing bane for others, I don’t feel he’s such a good fit here anyway. If I had to guess, this is all leading to Stark's self-sacrifice and the actor's farewell to Marvel, and while I’d previously have wondered at the hole his absence might have left, this is the first time I felt it could happily do without him. 


Whether he's interacting with Strange or Peter Quill the sparks don’t quite fly in the infectious manner of previous Avengers; the rapport only truly reveals itself between Downey Jr and Tom Holland, and even then, it isn't as effortless as in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Maybe that’s partly the repositioning of Tony as a less glib character, but there’s also the sense there’s nothing much left to do with him (in this iteration anyway), and we’re now going over old ground (he even has an arc reactor reinserted in his chest for reasons I can only speculate are to provide a Chekov's Arc Reactor as a means to defeat Thanos in the finale). 


There's also, simply, that he isn’t such a good fit as the centrepiece for this material. Unlike Thor or Strange, there’s no cosmic angle or element to his presence, so butting heads with Thanos doesn’t quite tally. Additionally, send him (and Peter) into space, and that Stark tech just seems primitive (I have to say, I was very unimpressed with the nanotech suit, which in most full armour shots resembles a bad CG avatar; perhaps the underlying message is to say no to nanotechnology – it's not cool and it’s not clever).


Structurally – what there is of a structure – the picture’s on a hot streak during its first hour, ironically perhaps, as the Russos are conducting something closer to a medley of vignettes than offering clear narrative progression. We flit from hero introduction to hero introduction, some of them bracing, some of them very funny, a few being damp squibs. While the picture manages to avoid becoming boring – and you’d notice if it did, given its remorseless length – some typical Marvel deficiencies surface as events proceed. 


The Russos have showed themselves competent enough with the demands of Marvel-mandated spectacle, but like most of their directorial teammates, they’re neither stylists nor naturals when it comes to envisioning the epic (the converse is, DC's Zach Snyder had the technical tools to offer both but ended up delivering a wretched mess each time). Infinity War includes plenty of universe-shaking events, but none of them are terribly rousing in an emotive, transporting sense; I appreciated the time devoted to the subplot of Vision and the Scarlet Witch, but we simply haven’t got to know these characters sufficiently to make it as affecting as it might have been, which is a sadly missed opportunity for a character with the potential of Vision, supported by the subtle performance of Paul Bettany. I don’t care about the fate of their relationship the way I do Tony and Pepper, even though the latter only has about three minutes of screen time. 


The picture is rarely less than engaging, though, so it offers the least you could ask for quite comfortably. That least is probably the Wakanda battle sequence, an uninspired retread of every CGI-assisted assault you’ve seen in the series previously, complete with measured-out character beats that are too mechanical to truly get behind. I kept wondering about the varying strengths and skillsets of the combatants at various points too, which seemed to shrink or grow with the demands of who’s supposed to be besting who at whichever point. Other episodes during the middle section border on the sluggish, the main offender being Thor's visit to Peter Dinklage’s oversized dwarf.


That said, the other climax, the all-these-devastated-cityscapes-look-the-same one on Titan, with its all-out attempt to wrest the gauntlet from Thanos’ clammy mitt is very agreeably sustained. And even if Strange’s one-possible-future-victory decision in saving Tony is telegraphed, it's another pleasing example – after his solo movie itself – of the MCU foregrounding an idea as the basis for a climax over mere disaster porn. 


As far as the superhero rollcall goes, I've mentioned my concerns over Tony and that Strange has a strong showing. Spidey’s a solid presence but he isn't quite in his element either, and the pop culture referencing is an unnecessary crutch (I suppose we should just be grateful Joss isn’t writing him). Thor, perhaps surprisingly given he isn't my favourite by a long shot, comes across very well (although the climax, where he arrives wielding Stormbreaker just after Thanos has claimed Vision’s infinity gem, is perhaps the most egregiously staged moment in the movie – the Russos might at least have shown him unavoidably distracted in the meantime, as it comes across as if he was waiting for Vision to snuff it before announcing himself). Cap is just so-so. T'Challa barely registers (neither do Rhodey/Falcon/Bucky). The Guardians are all pretty much pitch-perfect (the jabs at Quill/Pratt's weight are particularly funny). Natasha's gone blonde, but I can’t think of anything else to say about her. Oh, except she and Hulk briefly reunite and then say no more about it. Which was awkward.


I don’t know what they’re doing with Banner, but I've become a tad disillusioned with the crumpled, mumblecore, doofus shtick of Mark Ruffalo. The character’s now been reduced to comic relief, tripping up in the Hulkbuster, arguing in vain for bashful Hulk to show himself (you just know it just isn't going to be the celebratory moment they want it to be when he does), and even being shown up in terms of his scientific expertise (by Shuri). 


On the bad guy front, or the anti-hero one, starting the proceedings by killing off Loki is a smart move, promising an approach that unfortunately fails to materialise; much-needed stakes are set here, that this is a movie willing to deal out sudden casualties, where even much-loved characters aren’t safe, but aside from Heimdall (no one cared about him anyway), Vision and Gamora, everyone who "dies" casually disintegrates at the climax, to be reconstituted next time with the wave of a wand (and I doubt Gamora at least is a permanent departure). I was surprised to see Red Skull back, unsurprised that Hugo Weaving wasn’t playing him. 


As for Thanos' minions, they’re all okay, with some good performers shrouded in mo-cap (most notably Carrie Coon and Tom Vaughan-Lawlor) and unable to rise above the rather generic writing. Ebony Maw gets the best lines but doesn’t become someone you want to see more of, the sign of a good villain.


Which brings me to the more surprising element of the movie: the portrayal of Thanos. I'd been entirely unimpressed by his "uber-villain" presence hitherto, and aesthetic-wise, he remains entirely underwhelming. Yet there's a commendable attempt to give him comprehensible motivation, rather than presenting him merely as yet another crazed despot bent on total destruction or total rule, and Josh Brolin's mo-capped performance is about as good as you could hope for outside actually having Josh Brolin unmo-capped. 


Thanos has an ethos, even if it doesn't entirely add up. It isn't entirely unclear why someone dedicated to massacring Gamora’s home world should choose to save her, where this soft spot comes from, as it isn’t really presented as compartmentalisation on the grounds of higher purpose, or denial (Nazis have families too). And yet it's calibrated enough that we aren’t allow to mistake him for a true psychopath. He's genuinely upset at "having" to kill his daughter (although that scene is another that’s rather over-telegraphed). There's a perversely utilitarian logic to his view that the greater needs of the universe outweigh those of half its inhabitants (the comic appears to foreground the idea of balance, a more nebulous, philosophical perspective, whereas here it's fears of an unchecked population explosion and resource shortage that dictate Thanos' resolve), and I was put in mind of the Georgia Guidestones with their implicit endorsement of a population cull ("Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"). 


Of those three back-to-back sequels I mentioned earlier (Back to the Future Part II, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest) I can safely say I’m not as impressed by Avengers: Infinity War, perhaps partly because much of the potential freshness has been eroded by previous team-ups. Partly because the Russos just aren't in the same league as Zemeckis, the Wachowskis or Verbinski. That said, I also suspect that, even though the resolution of the Avengers 4 won’t surprise anyone, it will be more satisfying conclusion to Marvel Phase 3 than those trilogies' third parts were for their respective franchises. The paring down of the newer additions to the MCU in the final scenes is clearly a conscious move, so as to refocus on the original Avengers line-up in – for now – their last outing and (probably) the curtain call for this cast, which is fair enough on those terms, but it does rather eliminate the element of surprise from a premise that had the potential to keep us on our toes.






Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. The Avengers latest stand is well worth the wait. It’s not perfect, but it goes to place most tentpole movies wouldn’t dream of, while retaining the scale, excitement, and humour you’ve come to demand from an MCU movie. Check out the related news at https://nexter.org/category/celebrities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Warrior movies I love the most. I think avengers is that kind of film which we cant miss. Sonicseats give you chance to enjoy latest movies so book your online tickets toady with more savings.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…