Avengers: Age of Ultron (US - BD RA)
Gabe weighs the good against the bad in Marvel's mixed-bag team-up...
Feature
Good intentions wreak havoc when Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) unwittingly creates Ultron (James Spader), a terrifying A.I. monster who vows to achieve “world peace” via mass extinction. Now, Iron Man, Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) – alongside Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) – must reassemble to defeat Ultron and save mankind… if they can! (From Marvel’s official synopsis)

Following a comparatively disappointing theatrical release (only in modern Hollywood could more than a billion dollars profit be labled ‘disappointing’), Avengers: Age of Ultron has been aptly compared to another underwhelming entry in the Marvel canon, Iron Man 2. Both are direct follow ups to films that defied even elevated expectations to make substantial pop-culture impacts ( Age of Ultron was also following-up two phases worth of MCU sequels). Both films are fronted by filmmakers who earned creative leeway and overstuffed with distracting, mandated plot points meant to tie-in with future franchise entries. Both hectically introduce compelling villains that disappear for long stretches of the second act so that the heroes can fight among themselves and develop those expanded-universe narratives. Both have their share of high points that are usually overlooked in favour of their frustrating lows. The major difference is contextual – Iron Man 2 was confined by the expectations of establishing a formula, while Age of Ultron is struggles establishing new ways for that formula to grow.
For better and worse, Whedon’s choices make Age of Ultron the 2.5 hour equivalent to one of Marvel’s epic, multi-issue, multi-title crossover events. It seems exciting in theory, but doesn’t work in action. There are good ideas and exciting action gags that (arguably) excuse some of the bigger problems. Irredeemable issues arise from the attempts to connect Age of Ultron with future MCU pictures (Thor’s bath in the ‘Pond of Exposition,’ for example, or anything else the ongoing Infinity Stone MacGuffin-athon), but Whedon siphons a lot of those headaches into his version of Vision; that of the Mind Gem co-creating Ultron and becoming Vision’s power source. Not only is this the most exciting plot turn in the entire film – it’s a clever adaptation of the Vision character to fit the movie universe. In fact, Vision’s transition to the big screen may be the most creatively tailor-made since superhero movies started dominating the box office. When the original Avengers was released, we thought that it was Whedon’s ability to juggle an ensemble of superheroes that best served the developing Marvel blueprint, but now, considering the fragility of both Avengers films on a narrative level, I’m thinking that his ability to recontextualize old ideas is his greatest strength as a pop-culture storyteller. His ideas – not his quirky characterizations or cute dialogue – will be missed, now that he has departed the MCU (uninformed pet theory: Fox will approach Whedon to remake their X-Franchises in Bryan Singer’s absence).

Aside from the apparently studio-mandated trims to certain scenes (leaving gaping pits in the already fractured narrative flow), the big problems tend to belong to Whedon and his dramatic ambition alone. The most egregious is probably the treatment of Black Widow. At the center of the argument is the scene where Hulk’s soft-hearted alter ego, Bruce Banner, and Black Widow have a heart-to-heart outside of the bathroom at Hawkeye’s ranch. After clumsily exposing their feelings at each other, she compares herself to a monster, because she has been trained to murder people and because she can’t have children. This particularly male-centric view on what matters most to a woman’s self-worth (the ability to be a mother) is sort of jaw-dropping, but also an incredibly weak moment of characterization for Widow. Of course, Banner (who is a man and thus doesn’t define himself by his ability to father a child) doesn’t come off much better. The scene is supposed to represent a moment of humanity among characters that can’t afford to be vulnerable, but Whedon’s dramatic calibration is so far off that he’s pitting superheroes in an annoying pity-party contest where two beloved characters, portrayed by two top-of-their-game actors, are desperately fishing for compliments (‘I’m way grosser than you’/‘Not-uh, I’m the grossest one’).
On the other hand, I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to this very badly conceived sequence, because it feeds into the film’s overriding theme of acquired parentage. Ultron resents his father-figure, Stark, like a emotionally disoriented adolescent. Stark and Banner regret their place as the villain’s all-too-willing parents. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are fueled by the death of their parents, which they blame on Tony, and adopt Ultron as a replacement father. Hawkeye turns out to have secret family with 1.5 children. Above it all, every member of the Avengers plays a part in the birth of Vision, from rescuing the body, to uploading Jarvis, preserving the Mind Gem, and supplying the godly electricity that gives him life (which is an amusing turn-around from the comics, where Ultron is the father-figure Vision rebels against). It’s certainly not the cleanest metaphorical motif, but, again, I admire the ambition.

There are already a number of smart editorials on the supposed feminist champion’s disappointing choices in regards to the closest thing the MCU has to a leading superpowered lady, so I’m loathe to dwell on the point, but I’m also eager to complain about Black Widow’s capture later in the film. I understand why she ends up in the villain’s clutches – it’s because someone on the team needs to know how to find the Ultron’s secret base (the adolescent villain is also emotionally vulnerable and wants someone to talk to). And it also makes sense that Widow would have the spy skills to contact the others. But, by that logic, she also has the spy skills to find the secret base or a way to sneak into it. Instead, the only female on the team loses the fight, is kidnapped (rather than killed), and then helplessly held in a literal prison, where she waits for her would-be boyfriend to save her. Again, it’s not only a matter of Whedon embracing regressive gender stereotyping – it’s also a matter of him wasting precious narrative space on one.
This illustrates one of the major handicaps in attempting intimate character portraits within the context of a team-up movie – there’s almost no room for personal development. Even if the Hulk/Widow subplot hadn’t been a disaster, it would’ve eaten up too much valuable plot time. For the first Avengers, the drama and novelty was wrapped up in whether or not the heroes could unite against a greater evil. Whedon only had to concoct an acceptable reason for the characters to get together, then let his imagination loose on ways for them to overcome the menace. In deference to the other movies in the MCU’s phase two – and basically every post- Empire Strikes Back sci-fi sequence ever made – Age of Ultron needs to stir up the relative light-heartedness of its predecessor with more complicated emotional states and moral ambiguity. These narrative devices tend to work for the ‘standalone’ MCU movies, because they’ve centered squarely on a single lead character. Black Widow makes a series-best appearance in The Winter Soldier, but it is still Captain America’s movie and he has plenty of room to emote and grow in the two-plus hour runtime.

In contrast, Age of Ultron is an Avengers movie and, as such, tries to do the same thing with every Avenger, including two (Hawkeye and Hulk) that haven’t been seen throughout the entire second phase (post-credit gag aside) and one that played a supporting role in a different movie (Black Widow). It also devotes time to the origin story of three new villains and a new Avenger (Vision). Oh, and two of the villains (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) become Avengers. The best of the X-Men movies also tend to be sloppy mish-mashes, but have taken steps to solving the crowding problem by focusing on specific mutants. The MCU’s model and Whedon’s own compulsions require him to treat every single Avenger as a lead. The bulkiness of these extended characterizations is all the more discouraging, because Scarlet Witch’s nightmare-inducing powers are such an inventive and visually interesting storytelling shorthand. All of that efficiency is undone with clumsy running commentary.
Whedon’s action direction has never been great. Throughout Serenity and both of the Avengers, he tends to stage sloppy, fiddling combat between strong, comic book-friendly poses. Good-looking still frames don’t work in motion. However, against all odds, I do think Age of Ultron overcomes the greatest hurdle in the MCU canon – a compelling final battle. It’s easy to be fatigued by destruction by the time the climax rolls around and millions of robots start jumping around, breaking concrete – and one could accuse Whedon of unloading a few too many convenient plot devices and clichéd, unnecessary mid-battle speeches (Hawkeye’s down-to-earth chat with Scarlet Witch, for another example) – but there’s a proper sense of awe to much of the digital effects mayhem, as well as striking images (Thor, Iron Man, and Vision blasting Ultron is the best shot in the entire film) and some of the best jokes in the movie (Ultron’s frustrated ‘for the love of God’ when Hulk breaks into his escape ship). I’m also a sucker for the anti- Man of Steel-ness of it all, even if the statement is awfully heavy-handed. The final death toll of an entire city being lifted from the ground and exploded is probably six or seven people, which is, admittedly, very silly.

Video
Age of Ultron was shot using a number of digital HD camera systems, including Arri Alexa, Red Epic, Canon EOS, and pocket-sized options, like GoPro and Blackmagic. It was post-converted to 3D for theatrical distribution, but I’m reviewing the 2D, 2.40:1, 1080p Blu-ray release. I’m not the biggest fan of Whedon and cinematographer Ben Davis photographic choices here. I understand that darker story themes often lead to darker physical imagery, but, with few obvious exceptions (the South African scenes, for example), Age of Ultron is so dimly lit and heavily shaded by cobalt lighting that it’s sort of ugly. This transfer displays all of the blue darkness with the proper consistency and is sharp enough that the reflective surfaces and pin-point highlights aren’t lost in the gloom. That said, I do think it’s darker than the version I saw in theaters. It’s not a Godzilla-level grading problem, but the footage that appears in the extras seems more in line with my memories. Some details are crushed, while others are made stronger, thanks to the harder black lines that make up the textures. The limited colour palette – more blues, oranges, reds, and occasionally greens – is cleanly blended with smooth gradations. Compression noise is not a major issue, but there are ups and downs in terms of digital grain and slight blocking in the warmer hues.

Audio
Age of Ultron comes fitted with a very noisy, incredibly aggressive DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 sound. Obvious, the big battle scenes are the most extreme examples of the mix’s capabilities. The classic noises – ringing of Cap’s shield, the hum-buzz of Iron Man’s blasts, the thp-thp-woosh of Thor’s hammer, the rumble of Hulk’s roars, the zip of Hawkeye’s bow, and the…um, I guess Black Widow doesn’t really have a trademark sound – are all matched and augmented with a new selection of sci-fi sound effects. There are also a whole lot of explosions to rock the LFE. Even the less violent scenes distribute neat noise throughout the stereo and surround channels, and the dialogue is good and clear. The majority of the film’s score is supplied by Marvel workhorse composer Brian Tyler, who did decent things for Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World. In addition, the film reuses original Avengers composer Alan Silvestri’s major themes, but they have been reworked by none other than Danny Elfman, who lends decades of superhero score expertise to ‘hybrid’ versions of various motifs. I’ll admit that none of the MCU themes, except maybe Silvestri’s Captain America title score, have been memorable enough for me to really recognize the value of Elfman’s contributions.
Of course, the ultimate shortcoming of the entire film is that neither Stark nor Ultron ever stops to listen to either David Bowie’s “Messiah Machine” or Yes’ “Messiah Machine.”

Extras
- Commentary with writer/director Joss Whedon – Whedon sounds exhausted and has an annoying tendency to alternate between patting himself on the back and feeling sorry for himself, but he also fills the space with loads of information. There’s certainly no part of his process left uncovered. He’s sure to spread the credit/blame, though, by mentioning all of the cast and crew responsible for first and second unit shooting. I assume that this track was recorded before the film’s release and the subsequent critical reactions (he is enormously proud of the rancid Hulk/Widow bathroom talk). Seeing that he happily accepts responsibility for most of the film’s problems and that there’s almost zero sign of the frustration that bled through more recent interviews, I would happily download an alternate, more updated track.
- Featurettes:
- From the Inside Out: Making of Avengers: Age of Ultron (20:50, HD) – This fun, but fluffy look at the 18 month production/post-production process with cast & crew interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. The subject matter covers set design/construction, casting, performance capture processes, designing the new characters, the world-wide locations, and the Vision make-up/special effects processes.
- The Infinite Six (7:30, HD) – A valiant attempt at breaking down the developing story of the Infinity Stones in the MCU via clips, Marvel think-tank interviews, and images from the original comic books.
- Global Adventure (3:00, HD) – Another look at the locations, which the film shot (I believe this appeared on television during Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D.)
- Four deleted/extended scenes with optional commentary from Whedon (12:00, HD) – None of these scenes (very few, considering the original cut was somewhere around three hours and 15 minutes long) fix the film’s structural problems, but there are a few narrative holes filled. Somehow, Thor’s cave adventure makes even less sense when extended.
- Gag reel (3:40, HD)
The digital version, via Disney Movies Anywhere, also includes a Connecting the Universe featurette.

Overall
I could probably say more about Age of Ultron’s strong performances (Spader is so good) or mention that I wasn’t actually bothered by Nick Fury’s 11th hour rescue, but neither discussion would change the fact that it’s a failure that occasionally aspires to greatness (as Vision himself says, ‘there is grace in its failings’). It might look better in retrospect by the time we get to the next Avengers movie. At the very least, I assume it will act as an abject lesson on the limits of a MCU ensemble superhero movie. This Blu-ray looks and sounds as good as you’d expect. The extras are shorter than I’d like (there was a lot of deleted footage that probably should’ve been included here), but the director’s commentary is solid (if not occasionally embarrassing).


* Note: The above images are taken from the Blu-ray release and resized for the page. Full-resolution captures are available by clicking individual images, but due to .jpg compression they are not necessarily representative of the quality of the transfer.
Review by Gabriel Powers
Advertisements
Rewatched it last week or so and thought certain elements worked quite well such as James Spader but on the whole, it's stupefying and soporific. The muddled ensemble gives me so little confidence for a 5 hour, two part noise fest that will come in 2018 or whatever.
I still enjoyed the film for what it was, but it was definitely a step back, from the greatness of the original and Winter Soldier...
Whedon regresses all the major characters here. Stark is an annoying douche, while Steve Rogers is firmly stuck in the post-"First Avenger" mindset. And it's so overstuffed and over-plotted, I didn't care who lived or died. And now I'm not looking forward to "Civil War" or the two-part "Infinity War", if it's going to be like this again.
It's such a step back from the first one. Danny Elfman's reworking of Silvestri's theme is one of the best things about this movie.
It's such a step back from the first one. Danny Elfman's reworking of Silvestri's theme is one of the best things about this movie.
mlcm wrote: The muddled ensemble gives me so little confidence for a 5 hour, two part noise fest that will come in 2018 or whatever.
There's no way I can sit through another movie where 85% of the dialogue is just quips and the action is good guys punching generic faceless CGI baddies around the city. Much less a two-part movie.
mc_serenity wrote: And now I'm not looking forward to "Civil War" or the two-part "Infinity War", if it's going to be like this again.
Same here. Civil War is officially looking like Avengers 2.5: Age of Superhero Cameos.
There's no way I can sit through another movie where 85% of the dialogue is just quips and the action is good guys punching generic faceless CGI baddies around the city. Much less a two-part movie.
mc_serenity wrote: And now I'm not looking forward to "Civil War" or the two-part "Infinity War", if it's going to be like this again.
Same here. Civil War is officially looking like Avengers 2.5: Age of Superhero Cameos.
Civil War will have a different creative team at the helm and, on a second viewing, I really think the biggest problems are Whedon's. However, if Civil War doesn't work, well...the same team is doing both Infinity Wars...
Avengers, Captain America: Civil War. Those aren't movies that worry me. If anything, they're 'by the numbers'.
The biggest game changer left and by far the most at risk MCU movie that's coming out is Captain Marvel. MCU's first theatrical movie to star a female lead. No, not a 'strong female character' who plays a major part in the story that Kevin Feige loves to pride himself on. The movie is going to be hers and the MCU spotlight is going to focus all around her when the movie comes out. This movie more than any other MCU title has everything to gain and everything to lose. Avengers 2 was a disappointment? Just make another one. Fantastic Four reboot ends in disaster and costs the studio millions? Pspsps. We're so committed to these characters we're going to try and make a sequel! But if Elektra and Catwoman fail? No female super heroes period.
And even with that, there are still many obstacles that Captain Marvel has to overcome even before her movie starts shooting, and she's already suffering from one of them. Marvel Studios has already pushed her film back for the sake of Spiderman, a character they're only borrowing from Sony. Yeah, I know Black Panther and the next Thor movies were pushed back as well, but does it really stop there? Spiderman's inclusion to the MCU all but guarantees he's going to be an Avenger in the next Avengers movies and given how popular he is, someone will no doubt make the suggestion "You know that big character moment for Captain Marvel? Let's give that to Spidey." Ugh. I know that's just speculation, but come on. Marvel Studios gave their thumbs up to Whedon for treating Black Widow like this, and Whedon was like the best kind of hope Marvel had at breaking this mold. Now DC is going to beat them to the punch.
The biggest game changer left and by far the most at risk MCU movie that's coming out is Captain Marvel. MCU's first theatrical movie to star a female lead. No, not a 'strong female character' who plays a major part in the story that Kevin Feige loves to pride himself on. The movie is going to be hers and the MCU spotlight is going to focus all around her when the movie comes out. This movie more than any other MCU title has everything to gain and everything to lose. Avengers 2 was a disappointment? Just make another one. Fantastic Four reboot ends in disaster and costs the studio millions? Pspsps. We're so committed to these characters we're going to try and make a sequel! But if Elektra and Catwoman fail? No female super heroes period.
And even with that, there are still many obstacles that Captain Marvel has to overcome even before her movie starts shooting, and she's already suffering from one of them. Marvel Studios has already pushed her film back for the sake of Spiderman, a character they're only borrowing from Sony. Yeah, I know Black Panther and the next Thor movies were pushed back as well, but does it really stop there? Spiderman's inclusion to the MCU all but guarantees he's going to be an Avenger in the next Avengers movies and given how popular he is, someone will no doubt make the suggestion "You know that big character moment for Captain Marvel? Let's give that to Spidey." Ugh. I know that's just speculation, but come on. Marvel Studios gave their thumbs up to Whedon for treating Black Widow like this, and Whedon was like the best kind of hope Marvel had at breaking this mold. Now DC is going to beat them to the punch.
Gabe Powers wrote: Civil War will have a different creative team at the helm and, on a second viewing, I really think the biggest problems are Whedon's. However, if Civil War doesn't work, well...the same team is doing both Infinity Wars...
I agree Whedon carries the biggest blame, but Fiege's attachment to formula was a huge problem too. Same with Ant-man, for me at least—others have been kinder to it. I think after AoU Marvel will wisen up and loosen the Russos' leash a bit, but I'm still skeptical—Winter Soldier was great for me until the obligatory pixel-happy destruction porn in the third act, and on a 2-part Avengers movie I can only imagine that cranked up to an intolerable 11. But at least it'll be less quippy, I suppose.
Jeyl, Captain Marvel, Guardians 2 and the Netflix lineup are the only bright lights at the end of the Marvel tunnel for me. Huge letdown that Marvel is making their first female-lead film on the TWENTIETH (!!!) entry in their cinematic universe.
I agree Whedon carries the biggest blame, but Fiege's attachment to formula was a huge problem too. Same with Ant-man, for me at least—others have been kinder to it. I think after AoU Marvel will wisen up and loosen the Russos' leash a bit, but I'm still skeptical—Winter Soldier was great for me until the obligatory pixel-happy destruction porn in the third act, and on a 2-part Avengers movie I can only imagine that cranked up to an intolerable 11. But at least it'll be less quippy, I suppose.
Jeyl, Captain Marvel, Guardians 2 and the Netflix lineup are the only bright lights at the end of the Marvel tunnel for me. Huge letdown that Marvel is making their first female-lead film on the TWENTIETH (!!!) entry in their cinematic universe.
Not nearly as good as the first film, yet still profoundly better than some of the other films released this year....including Ant-Man. The narrative was very confused, the editing choppy/sloppy, certain plot elements (the romance) just didn't work at all, and others made absolutely no sense (Thor's mystic bath). Then you had some great performances (Spader, Downey) mixed with some really bad (Olsen, Smulders, Taylor-Johnson). Then you have the climax which was too similar to the end of the first film.
All things considered, there were plenty of good moments, scenes, and FX in AoU to recommend getting it. But it's definitely not as good as the first film by any means. I guess the Joss Whedon burn-out was more than evident.
Who knows what Avengers 2.5 (aka Captain America: Civil War) will bring, but since it's now out of Whedon's hands and into the more than capable Russo brothers', it should be good.
All things considered, there were plenty of good moments, scenes, and FX in AoU to recommend getting it. But it's definitely not as good as the first film by any means. I guess the Joss Whedon burn-out was more than evident.
Who knows what Avengers 2.5 (aka Captain America: Civil War) will bring, but since it's now out of Whedon's hands and into the more than capable Russo brothers', it should be good.
I am not sure why progressive female characterizations need to be a priority within the MCU or superhero movies, generally. Is this a highlight of the review because Whedon wanted it and missfired? AoU was a weaker film, but not because Black Widow's human frailty was highlghted in a conventional/traditional/"regressive" manner. Even feminists are allowed to lament the loss of their reproductive abilities. Aside from that dimension, Black Widow is a badass and a very strong character.
I remember watching that first Avengers trailer, with the big "assemble" moment, you see Iron Man hovering, Cap poised, Thor raising his hammer, Hawkeye drawing back his bow, and Hulk roaring, and I thought to myself how silly and PC to include that little lady reloading her pistol. Look, they shoehorned in a little gender diversity! Diversity for its own sake, very typical in Hollywood these days. Well, I've been very pleased with how organically Whedon and especially Johansson proved me wrong by creating a strong woman who can hang with some very strong men. I don't think showing her with some time-honored bonafide feminine preoccupations (romance, childrearing) weakens her character. Her characterization in the first Avengers was silly. "Red in my ledger." I barely understand what that means--as if she's an assassin-accountant. That's pretty gender-neutral, also rather cold, but not feminist.
I remember watching that first Avengers trailer, with the big "assemble" moment, you see Iron Man hovering, Cap poised, Thor raising his hammer, Hawkeye drawing back his bow, and Hulk roaring, and I thought to myself how silly and PC to include that little lady reloading her pistol. Look, they shoehorned in a little gender diversity! Diversity for its own sake, very typical in Hollywood these days. Well, I've been very pleased with how organically Whedon and especially Johansson proved me wrong by creating a strong woman who can hang with some very strong men. I don't think showing her with some time-honored bonafide feminine preoccupations (romance, childrearing) weakens her character. Her characterization in the first Avengers was silly. "Red in my ledger." I barely understand what that means--as if she's an assassin-accountant. That's pretty gender-neutral, also rather cold, but not feminist.
MarvDwight wrote: I am not sure why progressive female characterizations need to be a priority within the MCU or superhero movies, generally.
Because superheroes for the longest time have been the realm of predominantly men and it turns out that women do enjoy superheroes as well? Because everybody should be able to have a hero to look up to that inspires them? Because little boys and girls should know that men and women can be superheroes? Because women can be kickass just as much as men?
I realize you're being purposefully obtuse on this, posing a rhetorical question that hides your disdain for recent attempts at bringing gender parity to genre, ie you've clearly asked this question in bad faith.
Also, the red in the ledger is one of the only bits of dialogue from Whedon's entire oeuvre that I actually enjoyed.
Because superheroes for the longest time have been the realm of predominantly men and it turns out that women do enjoy superheroes as well? Because everybody should be able to have a hero to look up to that inspires them? Because little boys and girls should know that men and women can be superheroes? Because women can be kickass just as much as men?
I realize you're being purposefully obtuse on this, posing a rhetorical question that hides your disdain for recent attempts at bringing gender parity to genre, ie you've clearly asked this question in bad faith.
Also, the red in the ledger is one of the only bits of dialogue from Whedon's entire oeuvre that I actually enjoyed.
M Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable THE BEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER...............EVER.
MarvDwight wrote: I am not sure why progressive female characterizations need to be a priority within the MCU or superhero movies, generally. Is this a highlight of the review because Whedon wanted it and missfired? AoU was a weaker film, but not because Black Widow's human frailty was highlghted in a conventional/traditional/"regressive" manner. Even feminists are allowed to lament the loss of their reproductive abilities. Aside from that dimension, Black Widow is a badass and a very strong character.
I remember watching that first Avengers trailer, with the big "assemble" moment, you see Iron Man hovering, Cap poised, Thor raising his hammer, Hawkeye drawing back his bow, and Hulk roaring, and I thought to myself how silly and PC to include that little lady reloading her pistol. Look, they shoehorned in a little gender diversity! Diversity for its own sake, very typical in Hollywood these days. Well, I've been very pleased with how organically Whedon and especially Johansson proved me wrong by creating a strong woman who can hang with some very strong men. I don't think showing her with some time-honored bonafide feminine preoccupations (romance, childrearing) weakens her character. Her characterization in the first Avengers was silly. "Red in my ledger." I barely understand what that means--as if she's an assassin-accountant. That's pretty gender-neutral, also rather cold, but not feminist.
A (I'm guessing white? Don't want to stick my foot in my mouth) male that doesn't think we need progressive female characterizations in superhero movies and uses a Sin City-themed internet handle gives me pause, but that fact and the fact that you're using regressive buzzwords like 'PC' and 'shoehorn' makes me think there's no point in discussing this further, because you aren't actually interested in understanding the issue. Diversity for 'it's own sake' is great. It reflects a changing world, leads to more interesting stories, and much MUCH more important in the grand scheme of society as a whole than any tent-pole superhero movie. There's zero question. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
And Jesus Christ, 'feminine pre-occupations'?
It isn't about a woman's ability to lament the loss of maternity, but the fact that a male writer assumed that was the absolute worst thing a woman could experience and thought that it was okay for her to equate herself to a 'monster' at that moment. Motherhood doesn't DEFINE a woman anymore than fatherhood defines a man. Why wouldn't Banner be similarly upset that his babies would be gamma mutants? Because the boring old gender stereotypes say otherwise?
But, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW, I was more bothered by how awfully written and dramatically empty the scene was. Both characters come off terrible. Black Widow's other functions in the story are to be a bartender, jilted lover who wants to change the 'bad boy', and damsel in distress. That's completely anti-feminist. And, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW really bad, uninspired, seen-it-a-million-times writing, which may not be as important in the grand scheme, but very important on the smaller scale of this one tent-pole superhero movie.
I also said nothing positive about her treatment in the first Avengers, for the record. I was not reviewing that movie and didn't want that section of the review to be any longer than it already is.
I remember watching that first Avengers trailer, with the big "assemble" moment, you see Iron Man hovering, Cap poised, Thor raising his hammer, Hawkeye drawing back his bow, and Hulk roaring, and I thought to myself how silly and PC to include that little lady reloading her pistol. Look, they shoehorned in a little gender diversity! Diversity for its own sake, very typical in Hollywood these days. Well, I've been very pleased with how organically Whedon and especially Johansson proved me wrong by creating a strong woman who can hang with some very strong men. I don't think showing her with some time-honored bonafide feminine preoccupations (romance, childrearing) weakens her character. Her characterization in the first Avengers was silly. "Red in my ledger." I barely understand what that means--as if she's an assassin-accountant. That's pretty gender-neutral, also rather cold, but not feminist.
A (I'm guessing white? Don't want to stick my foot in my mouth) male that doesn't think we need progressive female characterizations in superhero movies and uses a Sin City-themed internet handle gives me pause, but that fact and the fact that you're using regressive buzzwords like 'PC' and 'shoehorn' makes me think there's no point in discussing this further, because you aren't actually interested in understanding the issue. Diversity for 'it's own sake' is great. It reflects a changing world, leads to more interesting stories, and much MUCH more important in the grand scheme of society as a whole than any tent-pole superhero movie. There's zero question. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
And Jesus Christ, 'feminine pre-occupations'?
It isn't about a woman's ability to lament the loss of maternity, but the fact that a male writer assumed that was the absolute worst thing a woman could experience and thought that it was okay for her to equate herself to a 'monster' at that moment. Motherhood doesn't DEFINE a woman anymore than fatherhood defines a man. Why wouldn't Banner be similarly upset that his babies would be gamma mutants? Because the boring old gender stereotypes say otherwise?
But, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW, I was more bothered by how awfully written and dramatically empty the scene was. Both characters come off terrible. Black Widow's other functions in the story are to be a bartender, jilted lover who wants to change the 'bad boy', and damsel in distress. That's completely anti-feminist. And, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW really bad, uninspired, seen-it-a-million-times writing, which may not be as important in the grand scheme, but very important on the smaller scale of this one tent-pole superhero movie.
I also said nothing positive about her treatment in the first Avengers, for the record. I was not reviewing that movie and didn't want that section of the review to be any longer than it already is.
mlcm wrote: MarvDwight wrote: I am not sure why progressive female characterizations need to be a priority within the MCU or superhero movies, generally.
I realize you're being purposefully obtuse on this, posing a rhetorical question that hides your disdain for recent attempts at bringing gender parity to genre, ie you've clearly asked this question in bad faith.
As much as I genuinely enjoy Gabe's reviews, in this case much of his critique (at least much of the word count) was on this issue, which struck me as tangential to the primary weaknesses of the movie, so it was not purely rhetorical. You're right, though. I do feel some disdain at forced and artificial gender parity, of an almost affirmative action variety. As I indicated, I believe Black Widow marvelously overcame initial reservations. As I also indicated, I disagree with a premise wherein the strength of a female character is undermined when she betrays a fleeting interest in traditional/conventional feminine priorities. A tough woman can't regret her inability to have children, or link that to a flaw in her womanhood. That's a realistic reaction. It's sympathetic. It's not 'regressive.' Sometimes it's like feminists want women portrayed as not just equal to men but equivalent in ways that just aren't sensible. It's as fantastic an idea as a guy turning green when he's angry, but it's less entertaining. And if Captain Marvel shows up, and she's tough and beautiful but otherwise non-distinct from the likes of Captain America, then God help the fangirls who look up to her.
Gabe Powers wrote: But, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW, I was more bothered by how awfully written and dramatically empty the scene was. Both characters come off terrible.
Fair enough. I didn't share that reaction to that scene. I don't think male Joss Whedon went so far out on a limb on the maternity issue, and I think you overreacted to it. Banner was regretting his inability to have gamma-free babies as a father, and it's his regret that sparked Black Widow's empathy. I didn't extrapolate that to reflect Black Widow's ultimate, deep-seeded sense of inadequacy as a woman. Geez, explained that was part of a trade-off to make her a better assassin. It is monstrous. She was an assassin. She did bad things. She concludes she's a monster. It's melodramatic, but it didn't hinge on her childrearing.
I always enjoy your reviews, Gabe, but I'm every bit the obstuse conservative white guy that you take me for.
I realize you're being purposefully obtuse on this, posing a rhetorical question that hides your disdain for recent attempts at bringing gender parity to genre, ie you've clearly asked this question in bad faith.
As much as I genuinely enjoy Gabe's reviews, in this case much of his critique (at least much of the word count) was on this issue, which struck me as tangential to the primary weaknesses of the movie, so it was not purely rhetorical. You're right, though. I do feel some disdain at forced and artificial gender parity, of an almost affirmative action variety. As I indicated, I believe Black Widow marvelously overcame initial reservations. As I also indicated, I disagree with a premise wherein the strength of a female character is undermined when she betrays a fleeting interest in traditional/conventional feminine priorities. A tough woman can't regret her inability to have children, or link that to a flaw in her womanhood. That's a realistic reaction. It's sympathetic. It's not 'regressive.' Sometimes it's like feminists want women portrayed as not just equal to men but equivalent in ways that just aren't sensible. It's as fantastic an idea as a guy turning green when he's angry, but it's less entertaining. And if Captain Marvel shows up, and she's tough and beautiful but otherwise non-distinct from the likes of Captain America, then God help the fangirls who look up to her.
Gabe Powers wrote: But, like I SAID IN THE REVIEW, I was more bothered by how awfully written and dramatically empty the scene was. Both characters come off terrible.
Fair enough. I didn't share that reaction to that scene. I don't think male Joss Whedon went so far out on a limb on the maternity issue, and I think you overreacted to it. Banner was regretting his inability to have gamma-free babies as a father, and it's his regret that sparked Black Widow's empathy. I didn't extrapolate that to reflect Black Widow's ultimate, deep-seeded sense of inadequacy as a woman. Geez, explained that was part of a trade-off to make her a better assassin. It is monstrous. She was an assassin. She did bad things. She concludes she's a monster. It's melodramatic, but it didn't hinge on her childrearing.
I always enjoy your reviews, Gabe, but I'm every bit the obstuse conservative white guy that you take me for.
So you're harping on the one point I said was less important in the scheme of the movie, ignoring everything else I said, and admitting that you don't have any interest in the discussion by flying a conservative white guy flag.
Good to know I don't need to expect anything more from you in the future.
Good to know I don't need to expect anything more from you in the future.
I think I was just engaging in the discussion. I "harped" at first, yes, hence my qualification that I do enjoy your reviews and did not mean to discard your body of work because I disagree with the emphasis on this one.
MarvDwight wrote: I do feel some disdain at forced and artificial gender parity, of an almost affirmative action variety
I don't understand what "artificial" means in this case. We're all aware that these are fictional characters written by writers who have full conscious control over their ability to put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard right? In other words, these artificial characters are not some organic juicy story fruit that grows on story trees that writers harvest when they're ripe; they're artificial from the bottom to the top and the situations they are reacting to are artificial.
I don't understand what "artificial" means in this case. We're all aware that these are fictional characters written by writers who have full conscious control over their ability to put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard right? In other words, these artificial characters are not some organic juicy story fruit that grows on story trees that writers harvest when they're ripe; they're artificial from the bottom to the top and the situations they are reacting to are artificial.
I didn't enjoy AoU much. The whole thing felt very dis-jointed and nothing seemed to work very well.
The plus point is definitely The Vision, who came together very well and Paul Bettany is easily one of the best casting decisions that Marvel has made.
Overall, I am not that much into the Marvel Universe, so I am not fond of movies that leave threads hanging that are picked up in other movies. I stopped reading mostly comics because of this c**p and it is sad if movies become the same way.
The plus point is definitely The Vision, who came together very well and Paul Bettany is easily one of the best casting decisions that Marvel has made.
Overall, I am not that much into the Marvel Universe, so I am not fond of movies that leave threads hanging that are picked up in other movies. I stopped reading mostly comics because of this c**p and it is sad if movies become the same way.
Looks like things just took a turn for the worst for the MCU. At New York Comic Con yesterday, Marvel made an announcement that while it seems progressive managed to come off in the exact opposite.
Phase 3 is going to fit in an Ant-Man sequel called "Ant-Man and the Wasp". Yay, I guess. We all knew that Wasp was going to figure into the next Ant-Man movie somehow, but in a move even I found innappropriate, Marvel decided to use this title to pat themselves on the back for being the first title of theirs to have a female character's name on it. I am not kidding. They believe they've vindicated themselves for giving a female character second billing. Since Phase 3 was pretty stuffed up to this point, something had to be pushed back.
YEP! CAPTAIN MARVEL AND ONLY CAPTAIN MARVEL HAS BEEN DELAYED ANOTHER SIX MONTHS! This rounds out her entire delay to a whole freaking year. Thor's release date was unaffected while Black Panther was actually moved ahead of schedule.
Phase 3 is going to fit in an Ant-Man sequel called "Ant-Man and the Wasp". Yay, I guess. We all knew that Wasp was going to figure into the next Ant-Man movie somehow, but in a move even I found innappropriate, Marvel decided to use this title to pat themselves on the back for being the first title of theirs to have a female character's name on it. I am not kidding. They believe they've vindicated themselves for giving a female character second billing. Since Phase 3 was pretty stuffed up to this point, something had to be pushed back.
YEP! CAPTAIN MARVEL AND ONLY CAPTAIN MARVEL HAS BEEN DELAYED ANOTHER SIX MONTHS! This rounds out her entire delay to a whole freaking year. Thor's release date was unaffected while Black Panther was actually moved ahead of schedule.
Yeah, it was a pretty bad announcement if you ask me. And Black Panther being moved to Black History month seems like the most condescending thing that could've happened to it


Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
Disc Details
Release Date:
2nd October 2015
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
2.40:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1; Dolby Digital 5.1 French and Spanish
Subtitles:
English SDH, French, and Spanish
Extras:
Director Commentary, Deleted/Extended Scenes, From the Inside Out: Making of Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Infinite Six, Global Adventure, Gag Reel,
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Joss Whedon
Cast:
Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Comedy and Sci-Fi
Length:
141 minutes
Ratings
Awards

Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Horrific Reviews





Released Soon





Hot News





Most Talked About





Visually, I thought it was a slight step up from the first one (which looks like an Agents of SHIELD episode), but still pretty bad. The color grading is a mess—completely unwatchable in 3D. I feel like on first one he was trying to mimic a Michael Bay look, found no success, and tried to do Zack Snyder for this one, with even less success.