Are you busy? Pushed for time? Did you promise yourself that you would marathon the twenty-one MCU movies before next week's Avengers: Endgame but put it off for too long?
 |
| Kevin Feige: likes the word 'Saga'. |
So I asked the question: what's the quickest way to recap on the MCU and still get all the major story beats that directly lead into Endgame? I came up with a short watchthrough of five films, in this order:
- The Avengers (2012)
- Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
- Captain America: Civil War (2016)
- Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
- Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
You could argue for Captain America: The Winter Soldier's inclusion but I doubt its events will directly impact Endgame. It does push forward Steve's character development but you get the CliffsNotes version of that in the first three movies on this list. I wouldn't have included Ragnarok a few weeks ago but now that it is confirmed that Valkyrie will be making an appearance in Endgame, it seems more essential. Plus, it also gives a lot more context for Infinity War.
In this 'Road to Endgame' series of blog posts, I'll be reviewing each film on this list, talking about how they further the MCU, tie into Endgame and their merits as standalone features. Full spoilers ahead, and for every one of these posts.
Okay, I really liked The Avengers when I rewatched it today. I've often dismissed it in the past (in my last ranking of the Universe it ranked at just #10, where many people would put it a lot higher). Compared to the cosmic adventures and thrilling character conflict that followed, it also seemed kind of small-scale and I've never really felt the need to rewatch it since I last watched it in 2015. Plus, I had this memory of it being shot and lit like a TV show (with Whedon's past in television and the aspect ratio contributing to this).
 |
| No longer mint condition. Too soon? |
But no, I was completely wrong. There are so many great things about this movie. For one, it doesn't look like a TV show. The opening scene is definitely lit somewhat poorly (along with some other bits, the fight in the woods comes to mind), but Whedon employs different and interesting shot types that help to make the film much more visually stimulating than your usual MCU joint. One of my favourite shots was definitely this shot (see left), with the trading cards on the glass table framed from below with Steve in the background. Another standout was in the scene when the Avengers are arguing and the camera pans, coming to rest on an upside-down shot of Loki's sceptre, emphasising the god's influence and also adds to the general feeling of unease in the scene.
Speaking of the Avengers, I think their characters are very well defined and play off each other satisfyingly, and many of them have distinct character arcs. It's passed off as a joke, but Tony's recital of his SHIELD personality profile ('doesn't work well with others') perfectly sets up his arc. In the first two Iron Man films, with the exception being the end of 2, Tony is a lone wolf. He takes on the terrorists by himself, he takes on Obadiah Stane by himself, and he attempts to take on Whiplash and Sam Rockwell (I can't remember the character's name) by himself. No, he doesn't work well with others, and we see this in the argument on the helicarrier. He's very quick to argue and lash out at his teammates.
Recently, I've been seeing a lot of video essayists on YouTube crop up with videos on Steve Rogers character arc across the MCU, which is his disenchantment with the U.S. government and America as a whole. It begins with him being a firm patriot in The First Avenger and ends with him leaving the stars-and-stripes behind at the end of Civil War. You can see the beginning of this arc here, when he realises that SHIELD, a government institution, is secretly harbouring weapons of mass destruction. I think Cap is overall very well-characterised in this film. For one thing, he has the speech pattern of a 1940s soldier. Not as a joke, like with Thor's faux-Shakespearean speech, but to emphasise his anachronistic persona.
 |
| The best Hulk ever. |
As for other Avengers written well, the big standout is Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. The only actor playing an Avenger to not have previously starred in an MCU film (though Hawkeye only had about thirty seconds of screentime in Thor), he had to establish his own take on the character from scratch. The Hulk in this movie is the best ever seen on film. And I mean this movie specifically. I'm not the biggest fan of where Ruffalo's Hulk was taken after this film, but he's so good in this. As Banner, he feels extremely volatile and it's very tense to watch the other characters dance around him, especially when Tony's being an irresponsible dickhead. When he does finally Hulk out (kudos for building up to it), the treatment of the monster as almost a horror movie villain rather than a hero is very effective. I think the finale kind of squanders this, though, when the Hulk suddenly becomes friendly and agreeable.
I think the movie has some pacing issues. The first act definitely drags it's feet a little as it has to establish five separate characters, and each of these scenes follows the same formula:
1. Avenger goes about their business.
2. SHIELD agent shows up.
3. Avenger refuses to go with them.
4. Avenger goes with them.
It's very repetitive. However, once Loki infiltrates an upper-class party (in a violent scene hilariously set to classical music, with Tom Hiddleston's casualness making it ten times better), the movie really takes off and its very exciting from then on.
The second act is the strongest and I enjoyed the back-and-forth between the characters. Loki is also the most intimidating here.
 |
| When you realise that your main villain is just an underling and really has no relevance to the story or motivations of his own. |
Ah, yes, Loki. I don't think he's very strong here. Tom Hiddleston's performance makes him very watchable, but the establishment early on of him as just an underling to Thanos takes the action out of his hands in a way that makes him seem less intimidating as a villain in his own right. He also tends to be the butt of undermining jokes and never seems to really know what he's doing, except for in the helicarrier scenes.
I'd remembered the Battle of New York as unnecessarily long, and while it is just several minutes of rubbery CGI, it's still a very exciting and entertaining sequence. Even after all these years, it's still exhilarating to see all the heroes fight together at the end. It also gave us one of my favourite moments in the MCU, when Tony takes the nuclear warhead and flies into space. It's the perfect culmination of his character arc in the film and was the genesis for one of my favourite MCU films, Iron Man 3.
As for the fight scenes that are not against CGI characters, they are crafted in the usual Marvel way, meaning they are mainly shot in close-ups and no shot lasts for longer than half a second. As in all movies when this technique is utilised, it looks like crap and you can't tell what's going on. I really don't understand why Marvel Studios does this. They have the money and the resources to create good CGI and provide good choreography, so why do they try to hide the fight scenes' flaws that could be non-existent?
The Avengers definitely surprised me. In fact, this is probably the most I've ever liked it. It had really good character development, was fairly exciting and was well-acted. A lot of the flaws I remembered were actually non-existent and it was overall a great time in my lounge-room.
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
No comments:
Post a Comment