Today's Review: Arrival

Toen de Canadese cineast Denis Villeneuve tekende voor de regie van het langverwachte vervolg op de sciencefictionklassieker Blade Runner bracht dat nieuws toch een frons op het voorhoofd van vele genrefans teweeg. Villeneuve heeft weliswaar een aantal bijzonder geslaagde, grimmige thrillers op zijn naam staan, maar had nog geen ervaring met scifi. Het is nu aan Arrival om die aarzeling bij de genreliefhebbers weg te nemen. De film zal weinig moeite hebben daarin te slagen, want hij toont aan dat Villeneuve zeer goed in staat is een intelligent en enerverend staaltje wetenschapsfictie af te leveren. Arrival mag zonder schroom bijgezet worden in het rijtje beste sciencefictionfilms van de laatste tien jaar.

De 'aankomst' in kwestie behelst een twaalftal intimiderend grote ruimteschepen die zich volkomen onverwachts aandienen op schijnbaar lukrake locaties verspreid over de hele aardbol. De paniek is groots, want het buitenaardse bezoek plaatst de positie van de mens in het universum in een nieuw daglicht. Het is Villeneuve echter niet te doen om de Grote Vragen, hij zoekt antwoorden op kleinere schaal. Te beginnen met simpele vragen als 'wie zijn jullie?' en 'wat willen jullie hier?'. Het is aan linguïste Louise Banks om samen met een schietgraag militair apparaat en wantrouwende overheidsagenten, antwoorden uit de aliens te krijgen. Dat is een zware opgave, want de bezoekers hebben fysiek noch taalkundig iets met de mens gemeen. Bovendien kampt Louise met haar eigen sores, geplaagd door rouw over haar verloren dochter.

De kwestie omtrent communicatie met buitenaardse wezens is natuurlijk niet nieuw voor het genre, getuige titels als Close Encounters of the Third Kind en Contact. Arrival tilt het communicatiethema echter naar een hoger niveau door het volledig centraal te zetten. Villeneuve geeft een boeiend lesje taalkunde door diep in te gaan op de vraag wat communicatie nu precies inhoudt. Als de aliens een vraag gesteld wordt, zijn ze dan bijvoorbeeld überhaupt wel bekend met het concept 'vraag'? Louise moet bij de absolute basis beginnen om de bezoekers de grondbeginselen van de menselijke taal te onderwijzen, terwijl het haar in respons niet makkelijk gemaakt wordt met het buitenaardse schrift, dat bestaat uit in de lucht getekende cirkelvormige pictogrammen die even snel verschijnen als verdwijnen. Slechts een langzaam proces tot wederzijds begrip overbrugt beide partijen, maar uiteraard kan de gemiddelde mens, laat staan het leger, niet het benodigde geduld opbrengen in het aangezicht van het volslagen onbekende. Zoals meestal geldt in het genre is de angstige mensheid haar eigen ergste vijand.

Villeneuve weeft zo stof tot nadenken moeiteloos samen met de spanning van een tikkende klok. Wie vreest dat de ellenlange beslommeringen over communicatie leiden tot een saaie kijkervaring heeft het mis, want Louises race tegen de tijd, haar strijd tegen de vooroordelen van haar soortgenoten, doet nauwelijks onder voor Villeneuves vorige thrillers. Amy Adams draagt daar effectief haar steentje aan bij in de rol van Louise. Ze houdt uitstekend het midden tussen introvert en openstaand, tussen getekend door verlies en gedreven door hoop. Haar tegenspeler Jeremy Renner komt minder overtuigend uit de verf als natuurkundige, een rol die hem niet zo ligt als de actieheld die we van hem gewend zijn. Desondanks heeft het duo toch voldoende chemie om ons bij de taalles te houden. Gelukkig maar, want taal is hier alles voor Villeneuve, met vergaande gevolgen voor het verloop van de film. Taal is niet slechts communicatie tussen partijen, zo stelt Arrival. Ze is bovenal een uitwisseling van ideeën en verruiming van de geest om tot nieuw inzicht te komen. Dat kan de mensheid goed gebruiken, maar naast de wetenschappers staan weinig mensen in de film ervoor open. Miscommunicatie leidt tot misverstanden, en misverstanden lopen snel uit in gewapend conflict als diverse landen geweld tegen de bezoekers verkiezen boven verdere tijdrovende pogingen tot dialoog.

Want voor taalbegrip is tijd nodig, stelt de filosofie van Arrival. Die samenhang tussen het linguïstische en het temporele vormt de meest originele invalshoek van de film, die borg staat voor een immense plottwist die ongetwijfeld niet iedereen zal bekoren, maar door Villeneuve met voldoende overredingskracht wordt gebracht om ermee weg te komen. Een vergelijking met Interstellar, dat zich eveneens kenmerkte door het beschrijven van een vergelijkbare cirkel tussen het grootse universum en een kleinschalig mensenleven, dringt zich op, maar Arrival wordt niet getekend door overdreven bombast. Spektakel is hier sowieso opzettelijk ondervertegenwoordigd, want voor Villeneuve is sciencefiction nog steeds hoofdzakelijk het overbrengen van intelligente concepten die tot nadenken uitnodigen. Daarbij komt hij bovendien opmerkelijk hoopvoller uit de hoek dan in zijn vorige werk, ondanks een wat zoetsappige, te uitleggerige ontknoping. De meest optimistisch boodschap komt nog het duidelijkst over: hij weet van wanten in het sciencefictiongenre, dus dat vervolg op Blade Runner is heus in goede handen.

Today's News: catching up required

It's been a busy week, which left me no choice but to neglect my blog unfortunately. In the meantime, the news kept flowing on MovieScene, which has caused me falling behind in commenting on it. Let's try and catch up a bit.

Nieuwe trailer Game of Thrones Seizoen 5

Coolest trailer first. Obviously Game of Thrones. I doubt everyone who was already superstoked for the new season will experience that anticipation much more strongly after watching this trailer, since the tension has already mounted to nigh unbearable levels. But as expected, the new trailer looks splendid. Remaining fan favorites present: check. Quotable one-liners: check. Expensive FX shots of new locations and assorted vistas: check. New plot developments as opposed to the books: check. There's definitely going to be many a surprise for those who have already read the books, now that the series is rapidly catching up with them. There's a few shots of such scenes found in this trailer. I better spoil things for people who didn't read the novels while I still can. Personally, I just hope the series won't spoil the fun of the remaining books too much, as it's obvious by now this show will be finished much sooner than the original source material will. Nevertheless, HBO, bring it on!

Singer regisseert Sci-Fi film Uprising

Despite being involved in a sex scandal and busy directing another X-film, Bryan Singer is already planning his next project. It's gonna be adapting a Robert Heinlein novel. Let's hope this is going to honour the source material a bit more than most Heinlein based films, as there's only one of them that apparently really does so, and by now it's 65 years old (FYI, it's the classic Destination Moon). Many Sci-Fi buffs will still look back on Paul Verhoeven's attempt, Starship Troopers, with dismay, even though in many respects it turned out a pretty good film regardless (as long as you like satirical social commentary in your science fiction, and who doesn't?). So far, things don't seem too encouraging on staying faithful: the name has already been changed from the poetic The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to the rather generic (but likely sexier and easier to sell to general audiences) Uprising. I can live with that change. Not having read the book, I can probably live with more of them, as long as the final result still proves to be a good movie. I like the notion of a penal colony on the Moon rebelling against overlords from the Mother Planet, which is basically what the general premise is. So as long as they keep that bit in, things can't be too bad, eh?

Renner en Adams in Sci-Fi film Story of Your Life

Here's another Sci-Fi project for you. This one does less to me. I like Amy Adams fine, but my tolerance for Jeremy Renner has its limits. The plot also doesn't sound all that appealing to my ears: it has elements of V and Contact, and going on the available plot synopsis, not enough to really set it strongly apart. That leaves the director to get me interested, and Denis Villeneuve at least does that, even though I still have to see any of his work (I know, shame on me). The French-Canadian director's oeuvre isn't particularly long, but so far all his feature length films have won critical acclaim. Prisoners for one looked like a generic thirteen-a-dozen thriller judging from the trailer, but from what I've heard from critics and audiences alike, it turned out an unexpected gem against all odds. Plus, they wouldn't just hire anyone to do Blade Runner 2, but they hired him. (Personally, I have no desire to see a Blade Runner 2 get made at all, but that's beside the point.) So apparently, at least there will be some talent sitting in the director's chair. And then you learn the writer of the piece was responsible for Final Destination 5 and the failed reboot/prequel to The Thing, and a wholly skeptical attitude towards this project returns full force.

Fox plant Expendables TV-serie

Another major motion picture franchise being re-developed to fit the small screen? That happens a lot lately. What's up with that?! Apparently the franchise has run its course on the silver screen and now the studio is looking for other venues for its appearance to make it cough up more dough. Aside from developing a spin-off of sorts at the same time (the all-female one, remember?). And stating 'they're still looking at the notion of more sequels', which is more or less saying there's not gonna be any for the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the concept of action stars coming together to make for an explosive team-up might work on telly. Are there enough TV action veterans available though. Sure there are! Plenty of shows to pick your oldies but goldies from. The A-Team, Knight Rider, Miami Vice, Quantum Leap or Battlestar Galactica, to name but a few. No doubt many an old and overly muscled actor from any of these shows is yearning for a chance to relive past glory and cash in on it at the same time. Of course, the appeal of such television (ex-)stars is probably not as great to audiences as it is for movie (ex-)stars, but hey, who cares, it's only television, right? Someone better inform the execs behind this project that these days, television is where all the high-class action is found, so if you want to make a worn-out concept like this work on the small screen, you better come up with some damn intriguing elements to ensure your viewers will stick with you. A gripping and compelling story, solid acting, captivating stunts, etc. Too bad not so much of these were present in the Expendables movies...

Nieuwe trailer Tomorrowland

Ah crap, this looks like any contemporary generic PG-13 Hollywood blockbuster. I liked it better when we didn't really have much of a clue as to what it would be about, but now much of the initial mystery is lifted. I had hoped for something a little more ingenious from Brad Bird. But apparently, he too can't think of anything more than a teen prodigy saving a/the world because he/she is oh so fucking special. Paired with all the crazy and outlandish visual FX a outrageously giant budget can buy. And a superstar to draw in additional audiences (in this case, it's George Clooney). Oh well, expectations weren't high. It's a Disney flick based on a theme park ride, how often do those work? Only on Pirates of the Caribbean, if I recall, and even then only once for realsies (the sequels were okay, but not nearly as catchy). I doubt this will prove as succesful a film, nor spawn four sequels. There doesn't as yet seem room for the quirky humour and truly wondrously exotic locales found on PotC that really pulled audiences in. Please let me be proven wrong in my obnoxious pre-release scepticism, but from the looks of it and full well knowing cynical old me and bland old Hollywood blockbusters, that's not likely to happen, today or tomorrow.

Today's (Semi)Review: American Hustle

Wrote this one as an informative piece for Filmhuis Alkmaar, but since at this point it's the question whether this title will make it for release in that arthouse-theater for various reasons, I might as well post it here on my blog, and save me the effort of writing it again in English (though in that case it would have been longer and more detailed). Considering it's kind of a puff piece and there's no room for exploring the movie's downsides - you want to entice people to go see the movie by pretending there's nothing to hold against it after all; you're basically performing a con yourself, so to speak - I can't honestly describe it as the most balanced of reviews. That said, I found little to be wrong with this movie, save for the ending which, like most movies dealing with hustles and con artists, typically leaves something to be desired in terms of credibility. We're led to believe the situation is what it is, until it suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and things happen to fit together quite differently, stretching the limits of how much we're willing to swallow. However, the strong personalities and terrific performances of the cast, coupled with delicious production design and gorgeous costumes and make-up, make it all the more acceptable for us to be conned as hard as we turn out to be. American Hustle is worth checking out on those accounts alone.

American Hustle: ****/*****, or 8/10

'Sommige van het volgende is echt gebeurd', is de boodschap waarmee American Hustle opent. Het is zoveel eerlijkheid als je gaat krijgen van regisseur David O'Russell (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook), die geen overdreven historisch accurate pretenties koestert in deze bewerking van de FBI's Abscam-operatie aan het einde van de jaren zeventig. Voor dit luchtige misdaad-drama bewijst O'Russell eens te meer een uiterst bekwaam acteursregisseur te zijn, die het beste uit zijn hoofdrolspelers haalt om zijn verhaal over de oplichterspraktijken van hun personages te vertellen. Zijn alle acteurs immers niet bedriegers?

American Hustle vertelt over het duo 'con artists' Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) en Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) die na een mislukte poging tot fraude door FBI-agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) ingezet worden in een heimelijke operatie om mogelijk corrupte politici uit de tent te lokken. Een neppe zakendeal met een Arabische sjeik die wil investeren in Amerikaanse projecten moet beelden vastleggen van burgemeesters en senatoren die smeergeld aannemen en zo als omkoopbaar aan de kaak gesteld kunnen worden. Het is een gewaagd plan dat Irving en Sydney slechts onder dreiging met een gevangenisstraf kunnen aannemen. Onder druk van het onvoorspelbare gedrag van Irvings vrouw Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) en zijn onverwachte vriendschap met hun eerste slachtoffer, de energieke burgemeester Polito (Jeremy Renner) van Atlantic City, wordt de zwendel steeds uitgebreider en moeilijker in toom te houden. Als vervolgens ook nog de maffia bij het stiekeme schandaal betrokken raakt heeft de operatie zo'n grootscheepse omvang aangenomen dat het onmogelijk lijkt het geheel nog tot een goed einde te brengen. Kunnen Irving en Sydney zich het vege lijf nog redden in deze schijnbaar totaal uit de hand gelopen situatie?

O'Russell begreep wel dat hij een sterk staaltje geschiedenis in handen had dat door zijn publiek met een flinke korrel zout genomen zou worden. Het maakte hem er slechts vastberadener op American Hustle te serveren als een sterk verhaal dat de kijker diverse keren op het verkeerde been zet, met een juiste balans tussen drama en humor om de bizarre aspecten van de Abscam-zeepbel te onderstrepen. Zijn grootste troef blijkt echter zijn fabuleuze acteursensemble dat elkaar bijkans van het scherm af probeert te spelen in veelal geïmproviseerde scènes, waarin ze het meer van hun gevoel als begenadigde acteurs moesten hebben dan van een script dat hun dialoog netjes op een rijtje zette. De acteurs en hun personages vullen elkaar uitstekend aan, met Bale als de ervaren maar voorzichtige oplichter met overgewicht; Adams als zijn partner-in-crime en stiekeme liefde van zijn leven; Lawrence als het secreet van een echtgenote, volstrekt egocentrisch en onverantwoordelijk: Cooper als de gedreven maar overambitieuze FBI-agent; en Renner als de sympathieke en gepassioneerde burgemeester met maffiabanden. Dat Bale, Adams, Lawrence en Cooper allen beloond werden met een Oscarnominatie blijkt geheel terecht en bewijst dat ze O'Russells beproeving moeiteloos doorstaan hebben. Het sublieme acteerwerk maakt de film een feest om naar te kijken.

Het sterke spel van zijn acteurs is niet het enige dat American Hustle tot een valse maar toch geslaagde cinematische vertelling van het Abscam-schandaal maakt. O'Russell doet de late jaren zeventig ook voortreffelijk herleven dankzij het visueel schitterende productiedesign. Ook hier vormen de acteurs het stralend middelpunt dankzij de nauwgezette reconstructie van de uitgebreide mode en weelderige haarstijl uit die periode. Maar ook de tijdsgeest waarin zij vertoeven, de auto's en technologie van weleer, wordt met de nodige flair nieuw leven ingeblazen, en weet zich daarbij gesteund door een hippe soundtrack die met een vette knipoog naar het Amerika van destijds refereert. Het geheel sleurt de kijker volledig mee in de deceptie, maar de relativerende humor die het absurdistische van het schandaal onderschrijft zorgt er doeltreffend voor dat de toeschouwer gepaste afstand houdt met het wel en wee van de oneerlijke personages als hun zwendel op een gevaarlijk kookpunt dreigt af te stevenen. Hoe grotesker de uitkomst, hoe leuker voor ons.

O'Russell maakt er geen groot geheim van dat hij ons diverse keren op het verkeerde spoor zet en ons bedriegt door het niet zo nauw te nemen met de historische feiten. Zijn hervertelling van de Abscam-operatie is letterlijk zowel te bizar als te mooi om waar te zijn, maar met een prachtig eindresultaat als American Hustle maken we daar geen enkel moment bezwaar tegen.

Today's bunch of mini-reviews

Great Expectations: ***/*****, or 6/10

Mike Newell's take on the classic novel by Charles Dickens. The elaborate visual look to the film suggests a director who has dabbled in big Hollywood pictures, correctly so with the likes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time on Newell's resumé. Despite his experience in big American movies, Great Expectations is decidedly British in tone, as it should be considering it's based on a British novel centered on a poor British boy getting involved in the affairs of wealthy British folk. Little Pip leads a normal harsh life in the lower class, struggling to make a living. He soon finds himself entranced by the eerie Ms. Havisham, a bat shit crazy lady who was betrayed by her bethrothed and since hates all men. The woman sets him up with her young but cold ward Estella with the purpose that he falls in love with her and she gets to break his heart, which kinda happens. Later in life Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) is invited to become a gentleman in London, learning the do's and don'ts of high society, courtesy of an unknown benefactor. He soon meets Estella again, now performed by the ravishing Holliday Grainger (of Borgias fame), but is dismayed to hear she is set to marry a not so likable other. Can Pip rescue his love from the clutches of the upperclass? Will he become a gentleman after all? What's the deal with Ms. Havisham and who is paying for his upbringing? Thanks to the lovely acting of the cast of Harry Potter notable veteran English actors, among them Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Robbie Coltrane, we are about to find out. And still, despite this solid cast with its impeccable performances and a grandiose detailed period look, Newell's Great Expectations just ends up being somewhat dull. Is it the fact the story has been done so often in years past (even South Park has done an episode around it)? Is it the dated story of social inequality and upperclass intrigue? Who's to say? Truth is, it's better not to foster too great an expectation beforehand, since you might end up disappointed, but it won't be the actors' or the production designer's fault. And don't expect any robot monkeys either.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters: ***/*****, or 6/10

This is not the fairy tale you heard as a kid, about two young siblings killing a witch in an oven. Well, that does happen, but this movie mostly focuses on the successful career of slaying witches those children made afterwards as they grew up. Thanks to Norse director Tommy Wirkola, who in his own country is noted for his 'Nazi zombie' flick Dead Snow, this new spin to the fairy tale ends up being a slick, action packed horror flick filled with many an over-the-top witch kill and creepy monstrous crones to match (good make-up effects there!). Hansel (Jeremy Renner doing what he always does, which is not so interesting) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton, always interesting!) scour the land as bounty hunters, often being hired to track and eliminate local witch infestations. Now, they must face the ultimate ordeal of converging black magic as a powerful witch leader (Famke Janssen) is determined to perform a dark ritual that would grant her great power to the ruin of all good things. As an added nuisance, she needs Gretel's blood to do the trick and Gretel doesn't agree with that decision. Soon the pair must fight off more witches than they ever did before, at the same time learning a new thing or two about the place of witches in the world and the fate of their parents they always thought abandoned them in the woods to die. A typical simple plot bereft of true narrative surprises, but a decent stage for nice hardcore action and a plethora of thrilling stunts. The movie delivers in those regards, and with a running time of just under 90 minutes doesn't overstay its welcome.

Oz: The Great and Powerful: ***/*****, or 7/10

Big budget semi-prequel to The Wizard of Oz (more so to the book than to the 1939 classic film, also for copyright reasons), directed by Sam Raimi who gets more family friendly than we've ever seen him before. Down-on-his-luck country magician Oz (James Franco) gets swept to the far away fantasy land of the same name via balloon and tornado where he is hailed as the saviour of the realm. Since it would make him king, earn him the love of several gorgeous woman (Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz, lucky bastard!) and provide him with a fabulous treasure, the greedy swindler all too eagerly accepts, despite the fact he's expected to kill a wicked witch (a lot of witches in Hollywood all of a sudden: I guess vampires are retro by now). Accompanied by several digital characters, Oz sets out to complete his task, which will cost him more effort than he initially considered. Even though our protagonist is basically a truly egomaniacal dick, the obligatory stereotypical moral lessons soon do their work (this is Disney after all) and all ends well with Oz being outed as a good man with his heart in the right place. This is not a movie you see for character development, but one you watch for visual thrills. Oz has never looked so ominously breathtaking, the Emerald City has never been greener and the Yellow Brick Road is just so dastardly yellow. Inhabited by a multitude of strange creatures (including terrifying flying baboons to scare the kids... in 3D!) and adorned with all manners of spectacular vistas, the technical aspect of the film is secure. In fact, it's underscored by a delightful nod to the classic film – they just couldn't ignore that one – as the film opens in black & white, in the original Academy frame ratio, up until the moment Oz meets Oz and we're colourblinded by contemporary digital possibilities in three dimensions. It works well enough, despite the story being largely 'been there, done that'. It's not Raimi's most original production, but there's great fun to be had for the whole family for a good two hours, as is Disney's goal in life.

Assembly complete!

The Avengers: Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

When it comes to superhero movies (or just movies in general), Hollywood is rarely thinking more than a few years forward these days. When a superhero movie fails in some regard, the general decision is to either ignore it for a few years or reboot it, so as to give the franchise a fresh start (which almost always neccessitates to tell the character's origin story all over again). Recent examples to the latter include the Spider-Man and X-Men series, which after a successful initial run went in the opposite direction when failure – either to make sufficient money or to please the audience – was somehow involved. 20^th Century-Fox studio executives therefore issued a semi-prequel for X-Men last year (the surprisingly fun X-Men: First Class) which both retold and contradicted its predecessors, while Spider-Man will return in a wholly new form next month after the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. The former case showed that sometimes a new direction can spawn good results, while the latter has still to prove whether Sony Pictures' decision to simply abandon the former trilogy completely in favour of a new team of cast and crew retelling an already often told story was a good choice, when The Amazing Spider-Man hits theatres in June.

However, Marvel Studios, formerly in cooperation with Paramount, but now under control of the Walt Disney Pictures, does things differently, and shows some impressive long-term thinking for the various superhero characters they still own the movie rights to. Their strategy was simple, but effective: introduce various single characters in their own movies, then put them all together in one giant über-blockbuster the likes the audience has naught seen before. Of course, this planning proved cost-effective, since the public's interest in every character could be tested first with each film, before throwing them all in the same mix, which also gave the studio the opportunity to weed out any characters that proved disappointing at the box-office, as well as keeping open the option for sequels only to the films of certain superheroes that did prove popular, without pinning the hopes solely to the results of their group effort. And so in the last few years, we were treated to various very different superhero flicks: Iron Man (immediately proving to be the most enduring character of the bunch), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Every one of these films contained various scenes and hints at the others and to the final Avengers product, so the studio could slowly but surely build up momentum, making the audience ever more interested and hyped for just what was in store for them. And now, after having waited and been teased for over four years, the Marvel Universe is fleshed out far more than would ever have been possible without this careful planning, due to the success of all these movies, resulting finally in the superhero-spectacle-to-end-all-superhero-spectacles, The Avengers.

And story wise, the best bit is we don't have to sit through all the characters' origin stories again, since that has all been done for us already, so we can just see the heroes we're already familiar with teaming up against a common foe. Warning: spoilers ahead! This foe, logically chosen, is of course Thor's semi-brother Loki (a wonderfully creepy and vile Tom Hiddleston), the only one of the characters' enemies to pack enough of a punch on a large scale to be a true menace to all mankind. After having fallen from the realm of Asgard, this bad guy disappeared out of the picture for a while, returning with a vengeance by teaming up with a mysterious alien race, hellbent on conquering Earth via the use of the Tesseract (a source of great energy first introduced in Captain America's private cinematic venture). This device has been in the hands of the S.H.I.E.L.D. secret service since the Thor movie, but Loki manages to infiltrate the research base and steal it, along with the minds of various base personnel, including their super archery agent Hawkeye (an agitated Jeremy Renner, so far only briefly spotted in Thor), much to the chagrin of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, charismatic and ready for combat as always) and his other top agent Black Widow (beautiful bad girl Scarlett Johansson, who was previously seen watching Iron Man's ass in Iron Man 2), who had a personal relationship with Hawkeye. Realizing a nemesis has appeared that threatens the whole world, Fury re-recruits the various superhuman characters we've seen before. And thus Dr. Bruce Banner (newcomer Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Edward Norton and doing a good job at it, portraying the troubled doctor with both sympathy and irony) is tracked down in India, both for his knowledge as a brilliant scientist and his anger managemant problems that occassionally transform him into a huge green monster on a rampage called Hulk (never angrier); Steve Rogers is pulled out of his quiet life in Brooklyn to fight in yet another world war as Captain America, despite having been trapped in ice since 1945 and still adjusting to the strange new world of the early 21^st century; rich playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., once again with his energetic flair and nonchalance that made him so popular in his previous two films, but no drinking problems this time) is tempted into joining the team so his Iron Man armour can be made responsible use of for a change; and even Thor returns from the realm of the Nordic gods in search for his brother, who he still cares about, just to find the guy has gotten bad enough to warrant the wrath of his hammer. With the players now all on the board, they set out to defeat Loki and save the planet (and Hawkeye) from enslavement/destruction by the evil aliens, resulting in many an epic battle scene, each more grandiose and large scaled than the ones that came before.

Of course, action alone is not enough these days (eh, Battleship? Wrath of the Titans?), we need to care for these characters. It really helps having gotten to know most of them and their various traits and motivations already in their own entries into cinema, so little additional exposition is required. But the big question remained: how well do these characters play together? Do they have the necessary chemistry? The answer, thankfully, is positive. Despite the abundance of star power here assembled (how many Academy Award winners and nominees again?), all the actors are fully into this large group effort and none of them get in each other's way or display so much as hints of appropriating the movie for their own ego. The same can be said for their characters, though the plot does call for Hawkeye to be underexposed so we still don't know much about him (but at least we know enough), while the first Hulk transformation takes place well into the second hour of the film, and until that time Dr. Banner seems more aound for the techno babble, something which plays off very well against inventor Tony Stark as a fellow scientist, as well as to the simple grunt Captain America, who has no idea what both great minds are talking about.

As this scene illustrates, the strength of the characters is the way they complement each other: Tony Stark is the inventor, the loud mouth with the great ego, Banner the scientist who needs to restrain his ego, Steve Rogers is the soldier who follows Fury's orders but does a grand job himself leading the team into battle, Black Widow is the spy who offers both incredible martial arts prowess and infiltration techniques plus the obligatory feminine empowerment, while Thor offers knowledge of a mystical realm beyond comprehension of any of his team mates but necessary to defeat the villain, plus he adds the personal drama to the group since this villain happens to be his (adopted) brother. Iron Man represents technology (and a lot of money, which can also come in handy), Thor stands for supernatural power, Black Widow (and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye) offers intelligence and bodily flexibility, Captain America brings the leadership and combat experience, while the Hulk supplies the necessary raw power. And so we watch the team perform in action together, including great moments like the Captain and Iron Man fighting back to back, playing off each other's strengths like using Cap's shield to deflect Iron Man's rays to take out rows of bad guys, while Thor and the Hulk try to outdo each other in brute strength, the latter winning, when all enemies have been vanquished, by still knocking out his friend to show him just who has the bigger set of muscles.

It's safe to say it's not the action but the characters that make the movie work. Which is not surpring considering Joss Whedon has been placed into the director's chair: if anyone knows about characters, it's him, which he has proven on the small screen with his excellent ensemble casts in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and was once again shown to be the case in the recent fabulous horror pastiche The Cabin in the Woods, which he co-wrote. And Whedon being Whedon, we get his trademark humour thrown in for free. None of this huge display of comic book power in audiovisual form would do as well without some much needed levity, telling us we shouldn't take all of this too seriously, which only increases the film's overall sense of fun. Moments of great suspense are interwoven seemlessly with superbly timed jokes, submitted by all characters, even the antagonists. By mixing humour, action and drama alike, while all the way making us root for every heroic character, Whedon proves he's well up to the task of tackling such a monumental undertaking, despite his limit experience as a motion picture director (the fantastic Serenity so far was his only foray into cinematic directorial duty, but already proved just what the guy was capable of).

Which is not to say The Avengers is without flaws, but fortunately they are but few. The role of Loki's alien henchmen and their specific identity and origins remain underexplained, making them little more than cannon fodder. Visually they look fine (as does the whole film) but they lack a soul and clearly exposed motivations other than being just mere minions. Hawkeye's lack of a character set-up was already mentioned above, while the same can be said for Nick Fury, the man who assembles this team of heroes: we've seen him in almost all of the previous separate films, pulling strings and initiating the formation of the Avengers ever since the end credits of Iron Man first ended, but we still know little about the man himself. Sure, he's in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. but just who does this organisation really answer to? This film shows him communicating with “the council” (whatever that is), a group of poorly lit, shady, nameless characters on monitors, but just who these people are and why Fury adheres to their commands remains secretive, so the audience too isn't sure what to make of Fury himself. This does add some mystery to this already mysterious man, but also feels like the writers either didn't really know or didn't care enough to explain it better. However, we may still get our answers, a Nick Fury film has already been acknowledged to be produced soon.

Fortunately for the general public, the good stuff in The Avengers far outweighs the not so good, and we are treated to 142 minutes of utter fun as we see great characters (possibly soo to be iconic) teaming up for equally great action, great comedy and great visuals, the latter ranging from enormous flying aircraft carriers to a devastated New York swarming with serpentine alien attack ships being taken down by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Marvel Studios can sit back and relax: their four year gamble has payed off, made them billions of dollars (this movie alone is gonna break records for sure), garnered much acclaim from critics and fans alike, and paved the way for many more entries into this cinematic Marvel Universe, so we can enjoy Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course The Avengers 2 in the next couple of years, with other related Marvel projects also to have been confirmed to tie in to this quickly expanding canon. After the steadily rising levels of success witnessed so far, culminating in the world wide nerdgasm that is The Avengers, we can do nothing but look forward to more Marvels, hopefully for decades to come. Preferably with Whedon involved, but we'll take them without if needs be.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

And the Avengers' troubles have only just begun... be sure to stick around for the mid-credits scene to find out why! Or simply watch the picture below for the identity of their new archenemy.