listen up avengers. now, it didn't come fromme, but somebody upstairs gave you a bad review. this could have been avoided if you hadn'tplayed with something you didn't understand. no, i'm sorry. it is a hoot that you don'tget why we need this. tony, i appreciate that you value criticism,but let's ignore this. really? that's it. you just roll over, showyour belly. every time somebody snarls. i for one thought you made a sequel almostas good as the first. we didn't. we weren't even close.i'm the critic here, maybe you should let me decide, huh?well, you did something right. see, cap agrees.we're the avengers. but that up there, that's
the end game. how were you guys planning onbeat that? the best way to fight a bad review is witha good one, and that's where i come in... this is movie night! hello and welcome to movie night, in-depthreviews or your favorite blockbusters, i'm your host jonathan paula. for the sixth timeon the program we'll be discussing. superhero films. if you'd like to take a look at the30 movies i've already reviewed in that category, please check out the playlist link on screennow, or in the video description below. specifically, we'll be looking at a poorly received superherofilm from the 21st-century with michael clark duncan that led to the marriage of its twoleads as well as an eventual reboot. we'll
also review the other 21st-century superherofilm with michael clark duncan that led to the marriage of its two leads, and a futurereboot. plus the new avengers flick. we begin with "daredevil". released on valentine's day in 2003, this$78 million dollar neo-noir superhero production from director mark steven johnson made justover $100 million in profit. ben affleck stars in the title role as a new york city lawyerblinded by toxic waste who uses his newly enhanced remaining senses to fight crime asan acrobatic martial artist in hell's kitchen. the original comic book character was writtenby stan lee, who was never one for subtly, which is why daredevil quite literally upholdsthe virtue, "justice is blind". it makes the
culmination of an early fight scene so unorthodox,as affleck taunts a criminal while watching him die. later, in an attempt to repair hisimage, or maybe just his own guilt, he reassures a young bystander, "i'm not the bad guy, kid."overloaded with noise, he goes to sleep every night in a special deprivation chamber, frustratedthat he's unable to save everyone. this is a bruised and tortured hero that seeks unrepentantjustice. affleck does a surprisingly good job with the role, especially consideringthe thick contact lenses he wore during filming made him virtually blind himself. the auspiciouslystacked cast also includes his future wife jennifer garner as a vengeful ninja with apropensity for push-up bras, colin farrell as an impatient hitman who's ability to throwdarts really well is probably the lamest super
power ever, and michael clarke duncan as anominously large criminal kingpin. they're joined by jon favreau, joe pantoliano, davidkeith, and leland orser in smaller, but pivotal supporting roles. given the hammy material,everyone is better than likely expected - but the romantic thread at the film's core isironically, its weakest component. what may have worked behind the scenes between benand jen clearly didn't translate on-screen, as their exchanges feel stilted and stiff.their introduction by way of flirtatious fight - which reportedly took four full days toshoot - moves at half-speed, and looks decidedly pre-rehearsed and fake. now while i appreciatedaredevil's superhuman sharpness to his remaining senses, there's far too many harness-assistedjumps and tosses in this movie that simply
are unrealistic for these mortal characters.looking like he raided the wardrobe closet from "battlefield earth", ferrell is a sharpadversary, hurling shards of glass at our hero, who back-flip dodges the projectilesin an awesome shot rather blatantly borrowed from "spider-man". while the decision to setnearly 80% of the narrative inside a flashback is a bizarre choice - the traditional originstory is still well-paced and fun. when young daredevil first wakes up following his mutatingaccident, the resulting scene is a visceral one; as the frightened boy struggles to controlhis new radar hearing abilities. it's this very deliberate and sensory sound mix thatis paired wonderfully with graeme revell's score. but the accompanying pop soundtrackreally dates this picture, combining the trite
music of nickleback, hoobastank, and an over-playedevanescence song during a training montage. i originally saw this movie in theaters andhonestly don't remember liking it that much - but the extended "director's cut" versioni re-watched for this review pleasantly surprised me. reincorporating a half hour of materialinto the film, this new 133-minute runtime allows for so much more character development,something sorely lacking from the theatrical edition. it also bumped the film up to a moremature r-rating, and includes an entirely new sub-plot involving coolio - which tiesa lot of the smaller threads together in a necessary way. "daredevil" was marvel's answerto dc comics' "batman"... and the two characters share a number of similarities with theirbackstory and darker realism. which is why
it's a bit amusing affleck eventually gotthe opportunity to portray both on the big screen. despite its mixed reception, thisfilm led to the garner-centric spin-off, "elektra" and a netflix original series reboot in 2015,not to mention the three affleck children who owe their very existence to their parentsmeeting on set. while the theatrical version was a misguided disappointment, the director'scut restores this feature to an enjoyable adventure worth seeing for all marvel fans."daredevil" is an underrated film with redeeming characters. here's what you had to say inthe youtube comments. the difference in opinion on this picturewas striking, which was largely dependent on what version you saw. criticizing the storyand action, you thought this was meh... which
is what i rated this movie the first timei saw it, but the director's cut has changed my opinion, i'm giving this a seven out often. for tonight's poll question: which superhero character do you think deserves a big-screenreboot the most? leave your response as a comment below. next up, let's discuss "greenlantern". this june 2011 superhero effort from martincampbell was a high profile disappointment for dc comics after the $200 million dollarproduction only earned $219 million at the box office. the pg-13 rated story opens witha cgi-heavy prologue which unloads an overbearing amount of exposition. those unfamiliar withthe film would be forgiven for assuming it's an animated feature, rather than live-action;the excessive use of overly glossy visual
effects is that bad. the handsome ryan reynoldsstars as an irresponsible fighter pilot who is granted a mysterious alien ring that giveshim fantastic abilities, and a place among an intergalactic police force known as thegreen lantern corps. i've been a fan of ryan since his early days on "two guys, a girl,and pizza place"... and he's certainly capable here, playing a reckless womanizer who isbaffled at his new gifts. but besides a tragic childhood event, we don't learn much abouthim. he shares a few moments of fleeting chemistry though, with his future off-screen wife, thetimelessly beautiful blake lively. elsewhere, peter sarsgaard does convincing work as amisunderstood and menacing villain with telekinetic powers, while mark strong barks his usualbravado as a unforgiving alien co-worker who
reminds reynolds, "fear is the enemy of will".angela basset, tim robbins, geoffrey rush, clancy brown, michael clarke duncan, and jayo. sanders populate the large supporting cast - but none have anything substantial to do.in fact, several are abandoned entirely, including a nephew character, who is never heard fromagain after his initial introduction. or reynold's best friend, who plays a pivotal role early,but doesn't have a single line of dialogue after the 60-minute mark. similarly, no one'smotivation is adequately explained, including a pointless mid-credits tease for a sequelthat would never be - which sees one character ignore the picture's central theme for nodiscernible reason. when the few action sequences do arrive however, they're particularly inventiveand generally stimulating - especially a climactic
face off against a cloud of evil incarnatethat threatens to consume earth itself. "green lantern"'s extended cut opens with a decentlyemotional chapter involving the tragic death of our protagonist's father - but it nevershould have been re-included, as a shorter flashback only a few minutes later conveysthe same information in a much stronger way. the scene that separates these two redundantsequences is a arrestingly shot and thrilling aerial dogfight that feels like a fun, modern-daytwist on "top gun" - where reynolds attempts to out think and out maneuver ai-flown aircraft.when the focus is on reynolds, the narrative is compelling, and more importantly: relatable- but frequent cutaways to these purple-skinned space police ruin the pacing of the lengthytwo-hour film. an over reliance on computer
effects sees most of these non-human charactersexisting decidedly at the bottom of the uncanny valley - making it hard to take any of theirdialogue seriously. the actual shooting style of the film works well though, framing ouractors in wide two-shots with colorful backgrounds, while the score from james newton howard fitsthe mood appropriately. much like its central character, this movie has flashes of greatness- that are unfortunately held back by its own shortcomings. the concept and imageryis certainly interesting though, which is why a planned reboot for 2020 might not bea terrible idea. i enjoyed seeing this picture, even if it wasn't anything special. "greenlantern" mishandles a flashy character with inconsistent results. here's some of yourreviews from the youtube comments.
you were critical of the story, and conflictedon the visuals, rating this a four out of ten. i thought it was alright myself. finallytonight, let's review "avengers: age of ultron". when marvel's "the avengers" premiered in2012 after monumental build-up, it was a gigantic smash hit - quickly earning over $1.5 billiondollars, making it the third-highest-grossing film in history. the first major crossoverof these established characters was an unprecedented accomplishment that quickly cemented the marvelcinematic universe as the biggest and most bankable franchise in hollywood. it also leftevery other studio scrambling to create their own interconnected film series... but it wasdirector joss whedon that perhaps had the toughest challenge: following-up this monumentalachievement with an even loftier sequel. and
while he may not have succeeded, this $250million dollar follow-up certainly comes close, and is well on its way to the $1 billion mark.released worldwide in april of 2015, and stateside on may 1st, this pg-13 rated extravagant actionadventure reunites dozens of players from across the first ten marvel movies in yetanother convoluted plot about world domination. during a whiz-bang opening siege on an enemyhide-out, we're reintroduced to the titular heroes with a very cool sustained long-takeduring the hectic action. downey jr. returns for the fifth time as iron man, who inadvertentlycreates a villainous and sentient robot (voiced by james spader) who endeavors to destroymankind. remarking on this creation, known as ultron, downey laments, "it's the end,the end of the path i started us on." truthfully,
the spark from his earlier performances isgone; with so much of his dialogue being delivered from inside his helmet, it felt a bit disconnected.but luckily, the mammoth ensemble cast also includes chris hemsworth, mark ruffalo, chrisevans, scarlett johansson, jeremy renner, aaron taylor-johnson, elizabeth olsen, paulbettany, cobie smulders, and samuel l. jackson. given the fragmented nature of the narrative,it's honestly impressive that each and everyone of these characters has their own individualmoment to shine, and a chance to evolve by the picture's end. sure, some contribute morethan others - renner receives lots of much needed development - while a few seem likean afterthought; hemsworth isn't given much to do outside of a single fetch-quest. a surpriseromantic development between johansson and
ruffalo also feels particularly out of place,especially in a movie already so over-loaded. there's also a bevy of crowd-pleasing cameo-sizedappearances from a half-dozen former sidekicks. by now, audiences know what to expect fromthis talented group of highly-paid a-listers; but the real joy comes from watching theirplayful banter during the expositional scenes. the aftermath of a party is especially enjoyable,their chemistry makes for some undeniable laughs as they take turns attempting to liftthor's hammer. besides being a perfectly balanced character building scene, it sets up an immenselyeffective payoff later when the mighty instrument is wielded. unfortunately though, this sequenceis also a reminder of who is sitting this picture out, with gwyneth paltrow being themost missed. while taylor-johnson's quick-sprinting
character is involved in creative ways, hisdelivery is void of charm or enthusiasm. it's his former "godzilla" co-star that reallydelights; olsen is a fierce and troubled character who uses her telekinetic mind-control powersreluctantly, and without total control. and can i just say between her, scarlett, rdj,cobie, and both chris's... there are a lot of very attractive people in "age of ultron".there are few bad guys in the mcu that can live up to the scene-stealing performanceof tom hiddleston's portrayal of loki... by three-time emmy award winning spader is asgood. his voice-only performance exudes so much charismatic wit it's impossible not tobe entranced by the eleven-foot metallic man he's portraying. although i suspect seeinghis actual likeness could have gone a long
way to amplify his extraordinary talents - whichare a bit diminished without his facial cues. he explains his curious existence by stating,"everyone creates the thing they dread." even at two-and-a-half hours marvel's longest pictureto date often feels a bit rushed. ironically however, it lacks a necessary urgency duringthe second act. there are a healthy amount of great action sequences to break up thispacing - a fantastic fight between iron man and hulk is particularly enjoyable - but there'slittle consequence driving the actual narrative. instead, it's the individual elements andlight-hearted one-liners that really make this picture so much fun. renner sarcasticallymocking a teammate behind his back, or evans providing a shield-assisted alley-oop to hisasgard friend make for some truly awesome
moments. the collaborative efforts from composersbrian tyler and danny elfman are suitably bombastic and appropriate, but it's the re-usedthemes from alan silvestri's original score that resonate the loudest. with over 3,000separate vfx shots, this picture could have easily got out of hand, but whedon keeps thedrawn out conflicts well choreographed and staged... culminating in a ridiculous climaxwith devastating possibilities. the cgi not only helps men fly and robots speak, it wasalso used to digitally remove signs scarlett's of real-life pregnancy. the integration forall these elements into the wide imax-frame is near seamless. although it's missing the"wow" factor that made the original so enjoyable, this sequel is another top-tier installmentfrom marvel - worth watching more than once.
"avengers: age of ultron"; organized chaosresults in marvelous blockbuster fun. and here's what you had to say about it. a fantastic adventure from start to finish,we both rated this an awesome, agreeing that it was just slightly less than the first "avengers".finally tonight, let's see what you're saying about films currently playing in theaters. if you see a new movie in theaters, tweetyour review with the #jpmn hashtag. next week we'll be reviewing five of the crappiest moviesfrom winter 2015; "the wedding ringer", "the boy next door", "jupiter ascending", "fiftyshades of grey", and "hot tub time machine 2" - almost all of which are new on home media.if you've seen these films, share your opinions
by voting in the polls below, or by leavinga comment review - i read them all, and will include the best in the next episode. if you'dlike to watch more movie night videos, check out the "related reviews" on the right, orsubscribe if you'd like to see more of this show in the future. also be sure to followme on social media for updates and exclusive content. once again, my name is jonathan paula,thank you for watching and listening. until next time, have a good movie night!
No comments:
Post a Comment