Category Archives: Sci-Fi

I’ve seen pretty much every superhero movie released since 2002’s “Spider-Man”…and, like probably 99% of my demographic, have been eagerly anticipating “The Avengers.” For those who don’t know, “The Avengers” is essentially Marvel Comics’ “best-of” ensemble piece, starring Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk (with Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Nick Fury as window dressing). After five individual movies – all of which have teased the possibility of a final mashup – my expectations had reached impossibly high levels.

The verdict? “The Avengers” is likely the greatest summer popcorn blockbuster of the last decade. It’s not a modern classic in the making, but it’s a jaw-dropping, explosive spectacle that demands to be seen in theaters.

The plot is remarkably straightforward, unlike some of its characters’ convoluted backstories: evil Norse “god” Loki, after his banishment at the end of “Thor,” is assembling an army of Chitauri aliens to conquer Earth. With the aid of a mystical cube weapon known as the tesseract (last seen falling from an airplane in “Captain America”), Loki plans to open a portal and initiate the apocalypse. Black-ops government agent Nick Fury must assemble a team of “Earth’s mightiest heroes” to resist the onslaught.

Director and screenwriter Joss Whedon faced an unbelievable task in formulating this film: juggling and developing six major characters from very, very different films. (Background for the uninitiated: “Thor” had the feel of a Greco-Shakespearan drama. “Captain America” evoked classic war films and Saturday-afternoon serials. “The Incredible Hulk” toyed with Jekyll/Hyde duality themes. “Iron Man” was characterized by hip, swaggering machismo and plenty of irony. And that’s saying nothing of Black Widow and Hawkeye, two less familiar characters who gain star billing here.) Somehow Whedon manages to make it work unbelievably well, simultaneously celebrating and satirizing the Marvel universe. The interplay between major characters is gleefully subversive, and adds plenty of color to what could’ve been a rather cumbersome flick.

It is hard to quantify just how many things “The Avengers” does right. As one might expect from a film packed with A-list stars, the acting is fantastic. Robert Downey Jr. steals the show as Iron Man/Tony Stark, bolstered by strong supporting performances by Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Mark Ruffalo. Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, while not quite as strong as in last summer’s “Thor,” is still a remarkably sophisticated antagonist. Furthermore, the climax is stunning, featuring some of the best effects and cinematography I’ve ever seen. Whedon, praise heaven, mostly refrains from using shaky-cam film techniques, which renders the final battle intelligible. “The Avengers” fully delivers on the apocalyptic superhero carnage fans have been waiting to see, ripping a page from the “Transformers 3” playbook and giving it some real potency.

If pure, unadulterated enjoyment was the only criterion by which I evaluate movies, “The Avengers” would be off the established charts. By the end of the film, my mouth hurt from how much I’d grinned during the final sequence. However, the film suffers from a few rather notable deficiencies – weaknesses that keep it from receiving a perfect score.

The crucial weakness of “The Avengers” and its predecessors is a lack of real emotional heft. In an ongoing quest to be “cool” and “edgy,” screenwriters pack their scripts full of humor and pizzazz – which make for great entertainment pieces, but never really challenge the viewer. The original “Spider-Man” films were full of warmth and humanity – and humor too, but always tempered with a strong sense of intimate realism. The early “X-Men” movies possessed a similar emotional bite, exploring themes of alienation and discrimination in a fantastical context. And of course, “The Dark Knight” was a brooding, ruthless masterpiece – one that successfully bridged the gap between crime drama and comic book film.

In the recent “Avengers-era” Marvel films, no such thought-provoking subtexts exist. While these films do promote positive values and extol courage/honor/etc. (for which they are to be commended), the deeper layers just aren’t there (“Thor” came closest). Maybe it’s unreasonable to expect that level of complexity from an ensemble piece like “The Avengers”…but the seeds were there, and I wish they’d been developed further. Comic books (and the movies made from them) are, in a very real sense, the mythology of the modern world; such mythology is most powerful when employed to communicate deep, timeless themes…rather than simply to entertain. From a worldview standpoint, there really isn’t much to comment on – and this, perhaps, is my biggest complaint.

At this point, however, I’m nitpicking. “The Avengers” isn’t a perfect-10 movie, but to be fair, very few films are.

Objectionable content, as anticipated, comes down to stylized action violence throughout (almost entirely bloodless). There’s a smattering of mild profanity, but it’s surprisingly free of harsher expletives. One point, however, warrants a brief mention: the film’s female characters – particularly Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow – seem to exist for no other purpose than to parade around in tight outfits. I’m sure this will be justified as an example of “female empowerment” (“Look at her, she’s fighting alongside the men!”) but it comes off as shameless pandering to the male gaze. (This is a relatively tame element; it only bears mention because it’s rather pervasive throughout the film).

None of this criticism is to say that “The Avengers” isn’t a good film, isn’t worth your money, etc…definitely go see this movie. If you’re a fan of action, science fiction, or superheroes, you will have a blast. “The Avengers” is everything a lighthearted, escapist summer action film should be – a fact the box office will almost certainly reflect.

Spend the cash. See this movie in the theater. It’s worth every penny.

VERDICT: 9.5/10
The perfect summer movie (and an almost-perfect superhero movie).

Normalized Score: 8.7

I thought this movie would be terrible. From the previews, it looked like a spiritual successor to “Twilight.” Given the fangirl hysteria over “Team Gale” and “Team Peeta” (the movie’s two male leads), I predicted a repeat of the Edward/Jacob phenomenon. Though I’m a huge fan of the books (and consider them to be some of the finest young adult literature of recent years), the film looked mopey and bland.

I have never – ever – been so wrong about a movie.

“The Hunger Games” is a superlative, visceral experience that deserves every bit of its hype. It is a stellar accomplishment that works on every level, but none more profoundly than as a book adaptation. In the months leading up to its release, I did not believe it was possible for a blockbuster, PG-13 Hollywood film to capture the searing intensity of the source material.

“The Hunger Games” is a post-apocalyptic story set in a shattered United States. Twelve Districts, forced to operate under the thumb of an oppressive central government, are compelled to annually send one male and one female teenager as “tribute” to the Capitol. There, they will compete in a televised blood sport – the eponymous “Hunger Games.” When her little sister is selected by lottery for the Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) steps in to take her place. Along with baker’s boy Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss departs for the Capitol, where she discovers a world of exoticism and violence. Eventually, she and Peeta are thrust into the arena, where they must fight for their lives against dozens of other tributes.

A movie like “The Hunger Games” stands or falls on the success of its leads. And Jennifer Lawrence turns in a career-defining performance as Katniss. In her debut film, the Ozark neo-noir “Winter’s Bone,” she played a spirited backwoods girl defined by her tenacity. And in last summer’s “X-Men: First Class” she proved she could handle blockbuster-caliber roles. In “The Hunger Games,” she bridges the two. It is impossible to envision a performance that better captures the essence of Katniss Everdeen. Josh Hutcherson, as Peeta, is nearly as effective – and the charisma of the two leads is the backbone on which the film rests.

Supporting performances are also strong. Woody Harrelson stars as Haymitch, Katniss’ mentor and a former Hunger Games champion. Still channeling the devil-may-care attitude he displayed in “Zombieland,” he provides a strong foil to the Capitol’s pomp and circumstance. Liam Hemsworth’s turn as Gale (a friend of Katniss’ in her home district) is less than appealing, but his character quickly recedes into the background. (And, to be fair, I also found him obnoxious in the source material).

Technically, “The Hunger Games” is impeccable. Production design is superb: the poverty of Katniss’ home District, the grotesque opulence of the Capitol, and the primal wilderness of the Games are beautifully depicted. Though there are a few uses of “shaky cam” techniques (particularly during the most brutal fight scenes), these feel entirely appropriate in context.

It’s also worth noting that “The Hunger Games” is perfectly paced. Despite the fact that the film clocks in at almost 2 ½ hours, not once does it seem to lag. Director Gary Ross brilliantly generates an atmosphere of lingering dread that persists throughout…one of the books’ greatest strengths, and potentially one of the most difficult to capture onscreen. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that Suzanne Collins, original author of the “Hunger Games” novels, is responsible for the screenplay.

I’ve discussed the worldview of the “Hunger Games” series at length in previous literature commentaries, and the film doesn’t stray from the books’ nihilism. No mention is made of God or faith, and a generally dark tone prevails throughout. This, however, is appropriate in context. These aren’t stories about the infinite perfectibility of the human spirit: they’re grim, savage meditations on man’s capacity for unimaginable evil.

I’m honestly shocked this film managed to obtain a PG-13 rating. Though sometimes obscured by fast camera cuts, the violence remains brutal and relentless. Blood splatters, bones crunch, and children die at the hands of other children. Viewers are naturally appalled – as well they should be.

Perhaps the image that lingers most profoundly is a “replay” from a prior Hunger Games. In the clip, one teenager looms over another, hammering into the loser’s skull. As the television camera ogles the blood-slicked brick in the killer’s fist, an announcer solemnly declares that “this is the moment when a tribute becomes a victor.” That single visual – glimpsed for perhaps ten seconds – epitomizes the message of “The Hunger Games.” Man is cruel, this film fiercely proclaims, and will succumb to atavistic bloodlust if offered a chance. “The Hunger Games,” like its spiritual predecessor “Lord of the Flies,” shatters utopian fantasies. Instead – through all the blood, death and horror of the Games – man’s true colors emerge. And they are dark indeed.

The bitter irony of “The Hunger Games” is that millions of people will flock to see this movie in the theater, and will watch horrifying acts of violence committed by children against other children – just as the citizens of the Capitol are glued to their own television sets, watching the Hunger Games unfold. Humans are fascinated by death and hatred, the film warns, and that fascination may birth unbearable carnage. Does that mean you shouldn’t watch “The Hunger Games”? Absolutely not – this irony merely serves to highlight the raw effectiveness of the movie’s message. And it’s a message that our modern, desensitized culture must hear.

That’s not to say, though, that the film is appropriate for all audiences – at the very least, this is a hard PG-13 bordering on an R rating. There are a few mild profanities, but the real issue is the savage brutality on display. Mature viewers, however, will find much to ponder here – even in the midst of despair and chaos.

Is it worth seeing, then?

“The Hunger Games” is a masterpiece that exceeded my highest expectations. Leaving the theater, I tried to think of what I thought should have been done differently. And I came up with…nothing.

VERDICT: 10/10
Flawless. Possibly the best book-to-film transition I’ve ever seen.

Normalized Score: 9.2