Angles on Ultron

It has been over two weeks since I saw Avengers: Age of Ultron with my brother and two sons. We made a celebration of it, as it was also Free Comic Book Day. (You can still see the pictures I tweeted on the right.) By now it's a bit late for a review. I've read a number of other people's, though, and here are some of my favorite angles. Beware major spoilers.

Where it Fits in the MCU

Emily Asher-Perrin (Tor.com) reviews the movie "as a piece of the Marvel Cinematic Universe jigsaw puzzle" because it's more successful that way. That's how I've invested since the post-credits scene of Iron Man, which I saw late, after Iron Man 2 was on its way to officially, maybe awkwardly announce the MCU. The first one I saw in the theater was Avengers because the individual characters' stories hadn't won me over yet. (With the exception of Iron Man 3, I've attended every Phase Two theatrical release.) For me, the serial continuity is what's fun, so all the Easter Eggs and fan service are easy bait.

Like Asher-Perrin, I'm hopeful that we might actually get an extended cut of AoU to redeem those moments that feel tacked on. The Maximoff twins are force-fit and Quicksilver's death completely hollow. (And unnecessary? I need to see it again, but couldn't he have just rushed Hawkeye and the kid out of harm's way instead of intercepting the bullets? I guess he was fridged for Wanda's development, which at least flips the common trope.) Thor's subplot is even less coherent, and I understand that Joss Whedon was forced by Marvel to include it. Again, I like when one MCU film sets up future ones, but hopefully not by sacrificing itself. I find AoU more guilty of that than IM2. Even the closing shots of the New Avengers (Falcon, War Machine, Scarlet Witch, Vision) struck me as cheesier than I would have hoped. Was Wanda flying, though?

So I Finally Saw "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

I never made it to see this in theaters, but instead chose blockbusters with higher ratings from critics. It's too bad. While I was repeatedly disappointed by those movies, this one actually exceeded my expectations. I guess that goes to show I should stop paying attention to the critics.

I agree it has its problems, but I still had a hard time finding things not to like about this movie. A second viewing might reveal more, but for now I can number them with the fingers on one hand - mainly just a few silly plot points. Narrative and tone took a lot of hits from critics, but I found the movie very well balanced. Sure, there are several plot threads to follow, but haven't we come to expect that from this genre? Isn't it one thing we like about this genre? What's more, they develop alongside each other, so that no character arc or subplot feels too sudden or convenient. We know where it's going and just get to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Or dread it, knowing the tragic fate beforehand.

"Edge of Tomorrow" Stuck in Yesterday

www.edgeoftomorrowmovie.com

In Edge of Tomorrow, a video game character's ability to reset or "respawn" is a very apparent metaphor (and intentional, according to this Hollywood Reporter interview with director Doug Liman). It occurred to me that the movie's central question could be "What if you had to keep playing a video game until you won?", which at first sounds intriguing. But on second thought, wouldn't it be more poignant and memorable a movie if it made me think about things like reincarnation, resurrection, or succeeding in life? The metaphor inside a metaphor is a bit convoluted. More interesting to me is the premise of a villain that can respawn and learn from its mistakes, sort of like the robots in The Incredibles or maybe the artificial intelligence of the xenomorph in the upcoming game Alien: Isolation.

It was Incredibles director Brad Bird who first piqued my interest in this movie when he tweeted the following:

Sure, he may be biased, being a sci-fi aficionado and having directed EoT star Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol. Then again, he is also the writer/director of some of my favorite movies, including those mentioned, The Iron Giant, and Ratatouille. That, and I was intrigued by his calling EoT "original." He made a similar pitch for Gravity, another movie that won me over and that inspired the amateur film study on this blog.

While EoT is not a sequel or a reboot, it is an adaptation of a Japanese book called All You Need Is Kill, and therefore not original in the sense of a "new idea." Bird suffered a lot of Twitter backlash on this point and so clarified two days later that he knew it was a book adaptation and simply meant "original" as "first film."

Now having seen it, I have to call "foul" on interpreting originality so loosely. As a fan of retellings, I have no complaints about recycling old ideas; however, I personally felt a little betrayed by his and critics' praise for the film as something unexpected and fresh. I did enjoy it, but I kept waiting for the originality I'd paid for, wishing I could reset my expectations. Like Tom Cruise's character in the movie, it's only on the edge of tomorrow because it's still stuck in yesterday.

To demonstrate, the following are plot points or other elements from the movie that draw from existing films (spoilers follow):