AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON "Galactus-Sized Disappointment"

[Edmund Kattak]

I just finished the rest of the album. Tyler has couple of interesting cues (Vision). and Elfman rounds out the end of the album with the last two cues and his NEW AVNGERS theme, which is okay but nothing that is universe-shattering. The lack of overall cohesion and uniformity make this a difficult listening experience. While I like a few cues, overall, I wish they would have stuck with one composer. I feel that If I just play all the Tyler cues and Elfman cues apart from one another, it feels like some things are missing. However, when I listen to it all in context, it does not make for a better experience - only longer. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice cues from each composer, but the lack of cohesiveness loses me. I can't enjoy this as is.

[AndyDursin]

Ed, that's a great post, and I completely agree -- it's a lot of things.

From the lack of classical training of the composers (it only takes so much talent to work with computers), to the films themselves, which don't generate the kinds of musical opportunities for composers they once had -- film music has an uphill struggle in the 21st century. And it's not going to get any better.

On the composing end...I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it's not a "generational" or "old fogey" thing. Musically, all one needs to do is to go back and listen to the construction of a score like SUPERMAN -- with its fully developed themes -- and then listen to something Brian Tyler has written for a Marvel movie. There's no comparison about their musical complexity, dramatic development -- they're not even in the same area code. And you're absolutely right, these days, the "themes" (when you even hear them) are more like leitmotifs, they're not full themes. I said the same thing even about Silvestri's CAPTAIN AMERICA theme -- it's more like a fanfare, it's not a fully developed piece of music, but it stands out when compared to the rest of the Marvel soundtracks.

As far as the films go -- the ADD editing and lack of variety, seemingly, in these films speaks to the audience they're geared towards. These movies are aimed at kids first, and comic book nerds second. You look at a movie like the '78 SUPERMAN, and there's a film that tried to please everyone -- kids with the comic book action, young adults (and older viewers in general) with the love story, and even adults (who might've thought the idea of a comic book movie was silly or beneath them) with its self-depricating humor. These days, Marvel movies aren't aimed at anything but the main demographic they're geared towards -- kids, teens, and aging comic book nerds. They're not aimed at an adult audience, which is why these films -- all of them -- have seemingly been wall-to-wall action. There's no room for a love story, there's scarcely any time for real, genuine character development. And that's seemingly all in tune with the fact the main audience is 5-12 year old boys.

Film music today is simplistic, uninteresting and fulfills a wallpaper-like function in most modern movies. It's not asked to do anything but instruct the audience on how to feel ("action!" "sorrow!"). To a degree it's because these composers aren't capable (I'm sorry but Brian Tyler is one of these guys who can "use an orchestra" but that by itself doesn't make his music the least bit interesting), and to another, it's because they're not being asked to do anything but adhere to a formulaic blueprint.

I've said it before, but modern "blockbuster" movies, to me, are like watching a 2 minute trailer -- for 2 hours. They're paced that way, they're edited that way, their emotions are as bombastic as a trailer -- and yet they go on for a feature length. In the end, you get all the empty calories from the rush, but they're mostly as memorable as sitting through a trailer...meaning slick, cool looking, but empty, soulless and forgettable. And they get the music to match...

[Edmund Kattak]

Andy, I saw this movie at a special screening last night. Wow. The word "inconsequential" is not what I would have used to describe it. It wreaks across the board. It has the feel of a comic book and not the "gravitas" of a comic book movie. The plot is disjointed and makes little sense overall. Obviously, it seems like some of the actors are tired of this stuff and they're looking for an "offload" point to exit, so Marvel can bring in some new AVENGERS. But this whole movie seems so forced, with the ends seemingly justifying the means in lieu of any logical linear progression that a good script would allow. What a disappointment. That's not to say there aren't good moments in the movie, but good moments and performances, alone, do not make a good movie.

This was a buzzkill for me and does not earn a repeat trip to the theater on my dime. I can wait until it pops up later in September on Blu-Ray. What a let-down. I think they're not going to do the numbers that they hoped in order to exceed the first movie, but I hope I am wrong for their sake. They even changed Tyler's "Marvel fanfare" by rplacing it with Elfman's "avengers" motif - or whatever you want to call it. I get the impression that they must have not been too thrilled with Tyler's score. The better moments seem to be Elfman. Interestingly enough, I only recall CAP's theme once - and I don't recall hearing it on the album.

Since they now have moved the Avengers new base to upstate New York, Theoretically, I guess the gang and Spidey could now drop in on Professor X's pad for a spot of tea, should Fox have a case of email hacking and a movie property sabotaged.

[John Johnson]

Not sure if this is legit or not, but it's been picked up by the UK press back home.



Avengers: Age of Ultron may already be playing in some theaters overseas, but the film won’t hit U.S. theaters until May 1 (with sure-to-be-impressive box office receipts not far behind). Even so, the Marvel marketing machine is officially in full gear for the next adventure featuring Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.

The Avengers themselves – including franchise poster boy Robert Downey Jr. – have already been making the rounds to promote the film, and that campaign has naturally extended not only to next year’s Captain America: Civil War (narratively, the most direct follow-up to Age of Ultron) and that other summer 2015 Marvel release, Ant-Man. However, it looks like Marvel may already be planning ahead for the home video release of its Avengers sequel.

Amazon.co.uk already has the Avengers: Age of Ultron Blu-ray available for pre-order, and while it has become regular practice for major releases to receive such coverage on Amazon early in their theatrical runs, Screen Crush has shared a particularly intriguing tidbit on what may be included in the Age of Ultron. See the below image, which looks like it’s taken from a promotional email urging fans to place their order now:



While this news remains unconfirmed by Marvel, the idea of an “extended version and alternate ending” for Avengers: Age of Ultron does make a certain level of sense. After all, director Joss Whedon has already gone on record as saying that the film’s original cut was around three hours long, and a common criticism of the final film – that its plot feels muddled and, at times, rushed – is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from an extended cut.

However, no Marvel Studios release thus far has featured an extended cut, and given the fact that Amazon product information isn’t the most reliable source, it’s best to consider this latest information with the requisite grain of salt. Most fans would certainly love to get their hands on additional footage of the Avengers facing off against the villainous Ultron and get a peek at an alternate ending (potentially one that feeds into Thor: Ragnarok and features a fan-favorite Asgardian?).

Certainly official details on the Blu-ray release of Avengers: Age of Ultron will trickle out in the coming months, but in the meantime, fans can look forward to what may serve as Whedon’s final Marvel Studios project. What deleted footage do you hope to see on the film’s home video release, Screen Ranters? Sound off in the comments section below with your thoughts.

Avengers: Age of Ultron hits U.S. theaters on May 1, 2015, followed by Ant-Man on July 17, 2015, Captain America: Civil War on May 6, 2016, Doctor Strange on November 4, 2016, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 on May 5, 2017, Spider-Man on July 28, 2017, Thor: Ragnarok on November 3, 2017, Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1 on May 4, 2018, Black Panther on July 6, 2018, Captain Marvel on November 2, 2018, Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2 on May 3, 2019 and Inhumans on July 12, 2019.

http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-altern ... u-ray-dvd/

[AndyDursin]

Final movie has separate "Music By" credits for both Tyler and Elfman.

You'll have to pay me to sit through a longer version of this film!

[AndyDursin]

Ed, I had the same reaction. Repetitive action, simplistic plot, poor job with Maximoff twins (really a waste of one of them in particular), boring "dialogue scenes" (at times feeling like "very special episode" of AGENTS OF SHIELD), AWFUL washed-out cinematography (was it my theater?), and an ending....wow, I could not believe HOW perfunctory it was. "Hey, our contracts are up, see you later guys!" -- are they serious??

No emotion in this film, no real stakes -- as I wrote in my review, it feels like it was made by a computer.

Won't matter because they'll rake in the money and kids will love it -- but I didn't get the sense the audience had the same affection for it that they did for the original. I remember lots of people laughing and cheering, and outside of one or two places, there was none of that in this film.

I also thought the very last scene looked like it had been worked over in a computer -- you know, the "new order" of the Avengers, most of whom looked like they were all in a different room and were composited together in the digital realm.

My review:

http://andyfilm.com/2015/04/29/5-5-15-m ... l-edition/

[Edmund Kattak]

Thinking about it more this past week, I think "inconsequential" is quite appropriate. This movie had no emotive connecting tissue to it, The "farmhouse" stuff (I agree on Cardelini!) is not enough to balance this. I am hard-pressed to even put much thought into this any further. It just didn't seem to be on par with even the other "weaker" marvel outings. I thought THOR: The Dark World was rather one-note, yet I think I can watch that movie again over A2.

I guess we'll have to see if "ANTMAN" redeems Marvel's heart and soul this summer.

[TomServo]

I was reading a mostly positive review of this movie over at AICN and one comment I found interesting, in that this isn't really a sequel to the first AVENGERS movie, but actually a sequel to the four Marvel movies that happened in between. I only saw one of those, so I'm really going to be out of the loop!

[AndyDursin]

SPOILERS

The positive reviews this movie is getting smacks of kool-aid drinking. This is a seriously, fundamentally flawed film, and for some "critics" to not acknowledge that feels like the kinds of reviews Peter Jackson got for KING KONG, which gave me the same "hollow" feeling but was praised by the masses.

When I was figuring out what to give the film, I felt the same as you Ed -- I had the same basic reaction to THOR: THE DARK WORLD, which I gave 2.5 stars, but I also found that film more entertaining on balance. Really the last Marvel film that felt this disposable was IRON MAN 2, which most, obviously, feel was the bottom of the barrel for the "MCU" pictures.

There were, in hindsight, more things that bothered me -- as in, why introducing ___ character when you're just going to kill them off. I guess they felt he was going to have a much larger role in the X-Men so why confuse audiences even though they share the film rights? Either way, it's good to know Taylor-Johnson is still completely uninteresting on-screen no matter what kind of wig or accent he uses!

Whedon did a poor job, I felt, with both characters. And it almost felt like he gave the characters who DON'T have their own film series (Black Widow and Hawkeye especially) more time than the others, which is all fine and good, except I don't ever remember Hawkeye being portrayed as this family-man farmboy.

Also, for me, Linda Cardellini > Scarjo.

Not sure what it is, but Johansson doesn't do much for me, whether it's the red wig or the way the character is portrayed...I just find her characterization uninteresting. As for the Hulk romance, it felt very contrived, like a watered-down rendition of what Ang Lee and Leterrier in their own standalone films. I felt Johansson had more chemistry with Chris Evans in WINTER SOLDIER, but they decided to nix going in that direction when IMO it would've made more sense than pairing her up with Ruffalo.

As for the big FX ending -- it was just as helter-skelter and tiresome as any Michael Bay production. Repetitive and nothing you haven't seen before somewhere else.

[AndyDursin]

I was reading a mostly positive review of this movie over at AICN and one comment I found interesting, in that this isn't really a sequel to the first AVENGERS movie, but actually a sequel to the four Marvel movies that happened in between. I only saw one of those, so I'm really going to be out of the loop!

I saw that but wouldn't agree myself. There's no explanation on how we went from the end of IRON MAN 3 to this movie. There's really no connection with THE WINTER SOLDIER, and the THOR element -- his scenes are more related to whatever THOR 3 will be than the last movie.

I saw that review and his last line was something like, "it makes you excited for what's to come!" Which is the problem with the lesser Marvel films -- they don't stand alone, they exist (like IRON MAN 2 and this movie) primarily to promote the next round instead.

Again, the big issue is that you just don't care. 30-40 minutes of the Avengers knocking around vanilla robot drones had me scrambling to read my Twitter feed (don't worry nobody was behind us lol). There's never a sense that there are any pertinent dramatic stakes on the line.

I've also come to the conclusion Whedon doesn't even direct the action scenes, they must be handed over to a VFX artist because of their mind-numbing sameness. Not that he'd even know how to direct action.

[Eric W.]

A shame this is such a large, loud letdown.

[Monterey Jack]

I thought it was fun. Sue me.

[AndyDursin]

Not going to sue over a difference of opinion of the word "fun"

However, you actually thought that last 30 minutes where the Avengers pound hundreds of robots over and over and over again was fun? To me it was no different than watching Superman dismantle Metropolis for 30 minutes in MAN in STEEL. Incomprehensible, repetitive computer spectacle.

Oh and I forgot to mention the "score"...oh wait, no I didn't. lol

[Edmund Kattak]

Not going to sue over a difference of opinion of the word "fun"

However, you actually thought that last 30 minutes where the Avengers pound hundreds of robots over and over and over again was fun? To me it was no different than watching Superman dismantle Metropolis for 30 minutes in MAN in STEEL. Incomprehensible, repetitive computer spectacle.

Oh and I forgot to mention the "score"...oh wait, no I didn't. lol

Oooof! It's sad when the best parts of the "score" were recycled Silvestri. There is no cohesive structure or sound, it's wrapped around the sound effects, dialogue, and haphazard editing. It's like, let's throw in the kitchen sink (Big orchestra, Chorus) but give them nothing to do - no perspective or meaning to how it's used. Uggghh!

And you are so right in the comparison to IRON MAN 2, although now I think I2 is a step above because it least had the soul-searching aspect between Start and his father. These are the kind of situations where I desperately want to root for these guys, but can't, because there's not enough substance on screen.

[sprocket]

you actually thought that last 30 minutes where the Avengers pound hundreds of robots over and over and over again was fun?

Hey, enough with the spoilers, here!