Director Report Card: Joss Whedon (2015)

4. Avengers: Age of Ultron

With the Marvel Cinematic Universe being a sprawling enterprise, currently numbering 23 films and ten TV series, some entries have emerged as winners and some as losers. Regardless of what I think, “Thor: The Dark World” and “The Inhumans” are always going to be near the bottom of any fan's list. And “Avengers: Age of Ultron” seems to be considered divisive, if not outright bad. This seemed somewhat inevitable. “The Avengers” became one of the biggest movies of all time, destined to be an era-defining nerd favorite. Inevitably, the follow-up is widely regarded as disappointing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I like this movie a lot. Not that a billion-dollar grossing giant blockbuster needs my help but, here, let me offer up a defense of “Age of Ultron” anyway.

Since the desolation of S.H.I.E.L.D., the Avengers have been traveling the globe and crushing every Hydra sect they come upon. They are seeking Loki's scepter, currently in the possession of Baron von Strucker. Strucker used the scepter's powers to gift the Maximoff twins with extraordinary powers. After recovering the scepter, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner use the magical stone inside to design an artificial intelligence. This is Ultron, which Tony envisions as a guardian of the entire globe. Instead, Ultron – quickly building himself a body – comes to believe that destroying humanity is the only way to save the world. He's also obsessed with humiliating and destroying his creators and the other Avengers. Earth's Mightiest Heroes will face their greatest challenges as they take on this new foe.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is a movie with a lot of stuff in it. There are six Avengers, to start, and each deserves screen time. The film has to introduce three new Avengers, in the form of Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and the Vision. Ultron has an origin and scheme to unfold as well. Whedon and the studio had pressure on them to include new sights, like a much requested fight scene between the Hulkbuster Armor and Bruce Banner's raging alter-ego, or an action packed climax even bigger than the first movie. There's so much stuff in “Age of Ultron,” that the reveal that all the world's internet passes through a central hub in Oslo rates as only a minor plot point. Yet, as overstuffed as “Age of Ultron” undeniably is, that feels like part of the appeal to me. The second “Avengers” movie is, certainly, one of the most comic-book-y comic book movies ever made. It is overflowing with ideas.

Part of why “Age of Ultron” is swollen with concepts and narrative is because it's not just a movie. It's part of a massive corporate franchise with hundreds of moving parts and certain duties to fulfill. Least we forget Quicksilver and his sister ended up in this movie as some sort of weird, legal “fuck you” to Fox. The film had to introduce Wakanda and Ulysses Klaue, all foreshadowing for the then-upcoming “Black Panther” movie. Perhaps most controversially, an extended sequence – which has very little to do with the rest of the plot – has Thor receiving visions of the Infinity Stones, further set-up for the coming of Thanos and his Gauntlet. Not all of this is equally compelling and “Age of Ultron” would almost certainly be better without these corporately mandated appearances. Yet, in a way, it's all part of the fun too.

Yet as filled with robot fights and urban destruction as the film is, “Age of Ultron” perhaps proves most effective when simply focusing on its characters. After its opening action sequence, we are greeted to a delightful scene of our heroes... Just hanging out. They trade war stories, rather literally in the case of some old veterans. They flirt and banter among themselves. Maybe the most delightful moment has the team messing around with Thor's hammer. It's a Marvel hang-out movie and, honestly, I'd watch a whole film of it. A cast this winning and lovable, especially when playing characters they've lived with for a while, absolutely deserves a chance to just bounce off each other for a bit.

As much fun as “Party at Avengers Tower” would've been, we would have missed out on a pretty great villain. Ultron is a classic Marvel Comics villain and the cinematic version greatly revises his origins. Hank Pym hadn't even been introduced by this point, so they had to. A constantly rebuilding super-kill-bot with a Oedipus Complex becomes a mentally scrambled A.I. determined to cleanse the Earth. (And, okay, he's got some Daddy issues too.) What makes this CGI murder machine, with his weirdly animated eyelids, so compelling is James Spader's vocal performance and Whedon's script. Spader's natural gift for playing conceited and neurotic have rarely been better served. Ultron is still a child, with a fractured mind that forgets things. Yet he's absolutely convinced he knows everything. When given Whedon's lovably circular dialogue to play with, Spader has a field day.

Massive blockbusters like this do come with certain expectations. That is, we expect lots of action, special effects, and shit blowing up. “Age of Ultron” certainly delivers on that. The opening sequence has the camera easily gliding between the different heroes, as they pose and fight in a snow-covered battlefield. Probably my favorite moments has Thor clearing a path with a shock wave or Hulk tearing through a bunker with ease. The Hulkbuster sequence is, indeed, a showstopper. Close-ups on a screaming face as the Hulk lifts up there is a cool moment. So are the various shots of Tony combating his out-of-control friend, involving a jack-hammer like fist or a swinging elevator. A car chase through Korea is not as memorable, though a couple of stunts involving Black Widow on a motorcycle are neat.

No matter how extensive the sequences of urban destruction gets, “Age of Ultron” has a specific consideration in mind. The “Avengers” movie came out two years after “Man of Steel.” Even that soon afterwards, the DC Comics adaptation was already notorious for its extensive devastation and casual disregard for human life. It's a movie “Age of Ultron” is deliberately in dialogue with. Throughout the film, the Avengers always take pains to rescue people, to make sure the path is clear of civilians. Tony makes sure a building is empty before collapsing it. Innocent bystanders are pulled from cars and carried to safety in a bathtub. Every single person is gotten out of the city before the film's biggest explosion. It seems Whedon and Marvel were determined, more than ever, to emphasize that saving lives and protecting innocents are what heroes are all about.

In the first “Avengers,” I highlighted Joss Whedon's gift for catchy, catty dialogue as a strength. “Age of Ultron” is right about when the constant quips start to become distracting, not endearing. During the opening raid, bad guys are shooting at the Avengers but they crack jokes and effortlessly chit-chat among themselves. They never seem in that much danger. Even as the stakes become higher, the jokes and one-liners don't stop coming. Hawkeye makes jokey asides, strictly for the audience's benefit. It's not that the quips are bad. A reoccurring joke about Captain America's dislike of profanity is mildly amusing. It just starts to feel out-of-place immediately, draining tension from action scenes and seeming forced in.

“Age of Ultron” also struggles with another unavoidable factoid that the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe has faced. Namely, everything is Tony Stark's fault. In all three of the “Iron Man” movies, Tony created his own enemies through his past misdeeds, inconsiderate nature, or imperialistic actions. In “Age of Ultron,” he directly creates the titular villain by rushing into something without considering all the consequences. I think Marvel is hoping to paint Stark's desire to protect the world – put a suit of armor around the globe, as he puts it – as a tragic heroic flaw. Instead, it's becoming increasingly clear that his blatant disregard for the consequences of his own actions creates more monsters than it defeats. “Age of Ultron,” like every other film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is completely disinterested in confronting this uncomfortable truth.

Still, none of the above flaws were the biggest controversy that “Age of Ultron” faced. Completely randomly, for seemingly no reason at all, Joss Whedon decides Black Widow and Bruce Banner have a budding romance. The characters have had exactly one private moment together before, when they first met. This is the foundation for a romance so deep and intense, they risk each other's lives for it? They consider walking away from every thing for it? It simply doesn't wash, even if Scarlett Johannson and Mark Ruffalo try their damndest to form some meaningful chemistry. Even that is derailed by the utterly awkward “monsters” conversation. I don't think Joss Whedon was implying that Black Widow is a monster because she's sterile. The character was probably referring to her years working as an international assassin. Yet it's still a horribly uncomfortable moment.

Still, not all of the character decisions made throughout the sequel are faulty. Chris Evans is still excellent as Captain America, the character remaining ever-true as always. Chris Hemsworth's natural ability for goofy comedy gets a little exercise this time. Most surprisingly of all, Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye gets some touching character development. A reveal half-way through the film, that Hawkeye has a close-knit and loving family, is a delightful surprise. This seems to emphasize that Clint Barton – whose superpower, we must never forget, is being really good at archery – is utterly out-of-place among gods. This actually adds a touch of humanity to “Age of Ultron's” pyrotechnics. Moreover, it ends up justifying Hawkeye's presence on the team. That a relatively normal guy suits up to go into battle against killer robots and space aliens somehow seems more honorable then an indestructible rage monster or a billionaire in the world's coolest WMD going into combat.

“Age of Ultron” sees the considerably large “Avengers” ensemble growing even larger, which is partly why the movie has so many bumpy sections. It's sort of amazing the movie can find room for Nick Fury and Maria Hill at all. Still, some of the new additions are welcome. Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda is a likable addition. It seems her superhero name of Scarlet Witch is off-limits - though I'm still going to call her that – which is probably fitting, seeing as all of her comic book back story had to be discarded because of legal shenanigans. Nevertheless, the vulnerability and emotion Olsen shows is fantastic. Integrating Paul Bettany's Jarvis, a part of the MCU from the beginning, and Vision was a fantastic idea. The introduction of Vision, one of the sequel's biggest digressions, concludes wonderfully with the simple, direct way it establishes that everyone can trust him. Bettany has a wonderful lightness to his delivery.

Sadly, as has become a bad habit of Marvel's, the film ends up throwing away almost as many characters as it introduces. Baron von Strucker is an iconic villain in the comics. Thomas Kretschmann was ideally cast in the role. After a handful of scenes, the sequel tosses the character away without a thought. Quicksilver is another Marvel icon with a long history. In the movie, Aaron Taylor-Johnson grimaces and blusters his way without really establishing the character's identity. He then gets killed, the sacrifice not meaning much since we barely got to know him. In moments like this, the Marvel movies resemble comic book crossover events a little too much. I'd like to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and assume the introduction of Helen Cho is setting up future events. But who knows when Disney/Marvel will get back around to ever utilizing that character, assuming they don't forget about her wholesale.

In conclusion, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” is a bit of a mess but I like it anyway. There are little moments of grace throughout the film: Vision and Ultron's final conversation, Cap and Tony arguing over firewood, everything to do with Hawkeye's kids. That helps patch over the convoluted plot, rushed character arcs, or awkward world building. The cast is still an utter delight. The action is still fantastic. It's clear that the Marvel team has gotten extremely good at pulling together massive movies like this. While there are plenty of grievances to have with “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” I'm still far too entertained by this movie to give it anything but a positive score. [Grade: B+]

Joss Whedon has been pretty open about how the process of making “Avengers: Age of Ultron” broke him. The pressures of making an enormous sequel, while trying to maintain a personal vision and capitulate to studio demands, left him “beaten.” He swore off big studio movies just to get sucked into the “Justice League” reshoots quagmire, which even he seems to agree was a bad idea.

Since then, there have been a number of projects Whedon has been attached to. It seems he'll probably be going back to television next. An HBO series called “The Nevers” is in active production. (Along with a possible reboot of “Buffy,” though how much involvement Joss will actually have with that remains to be seen.) With the weird balance of respect and controversy Whedon carries with him, it's hard to know what announced projects of his will come to be and what will end up in the unrealized pile with “Goners,” “Batgirl,” “Wastelanders,” a “Doctor Horrible” sequel and half a dozen proposed “Buffy” spin-offs.

Come back tomorrow as I wade my way through the last few Marvel Cinematic Universe movies I haven't reviewed yet.

Director Report Card: Joss Whedon (2013)

3. Much Ado About Nothing

If you're reading this, you already know the story behind Joss Whedon's “Much Ado About Nothing.” Periodically, Whedon has had gatherings at his home. He'd get some actors from his various shows together and, simply for the fun of it, they would read Shakespeare. (This same ritual would also give birth to “Once More with Feeling,” the much lauded musical episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”) Whedon's house is apparently quite nice and he's been wanting to shoot a movie there for a while. During the post-production of “The Avengers,” Whedon had several weeks of mandated vacation time. Suddenly, all these interest came together. He quickly shot an adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing” in his own home, in secret, largely with actors he's known and been friends with for years. The film rolled out in 2013.

Assuming you didn't read this one in high school English or drama class, here's the plot of “Much Ado About Nothing.” Don Pedro returns home after a successful journey abroad. He brings along old friends Benedick and Claudio. Beatrice – niece of their host, Leonato – does not think very highly of Benedick. The two begin verbally sniping at each other immediately. Don Pedro falls for Hero, Leonato's daughter, and decides to marry her. Benedick thinks this is a bad idea. For his own amusement, Pedro and his friends concoct a plot to make Benedick and Beatric fall in love with each other. Meanwhile, Don John – Pedro's brother – arrives to create his own scheme to ruin his more successful brother's life.

I like to think I'm sort of smart. At the very least, I like to learn. However, even speaking as an English major, I've never quite been able to get Shakespeare. The stories and archetypes are iconic, obviously. They've resonated through history for a reason. The actual act of reading or seeing Shakespeare performed is very different. Unless you have a book of annotations in your lap, trying to decipher the meanings and exact wordplay of Shakespeare's prose is challenging. Watching a Shakespeare film, at least one that keeps the original words, is a lot like watching a film in a foreign language without subtitles.

Unless you've studied the Bard and really grasp every nuances of his writing and style, you don't watch Shakespeare be performed the same way you'd watch any other movie or play. So instead of being about the story or the dialogue, it's about the small stuff. You learn to appreciate the conversations you do understand, the filmmaker's take on the standard plots, the amusing moments in-between actors. Compared to big, dramatic narratives like “Romeo & Juliet,” “Hamlet,” or “MacBeth,” “Much Ado About Nothing” is a play with a lot more moving parts. You've got subplots and schemes playing out alongside everything else. This is the reason it's not filmed as often as those other plays. Which makes the material even harder to approach.

So let's consider “Much Ado About Nothing” within the Joss Whedon canon. In the run-up to the film's release, the director shared some of the reasons why the play appeals to him. He talked about how our notions of love are created by the pressure of society. How growing outside of that limitations is how we find true love. Romantic relationship, and the tangles they create, are certainly a reoccurring theme across Whedon's TV shows. (Not his movies so much.) As is the self's struggle for independence and idealization against societal pressures. Not to mention the guy likes bickering and bantering within ensembles. So it's easy to see why he chose “Much Ado About Nothing,” instead of “Timon of Athens” or whatever.

As far as I can tell, “Much Ado About Nothing” was basically the first romantic-comedy, at least how we think of the term in a modern sense. Funny shenanigans ensue as two people go on a journey from hating each other to loving each other. You've seen that story play out a hundred times before. Shakespeare even foresaw the genre's need to have a ridiculously, and unnecessarily, evil bad guy. Despite the obvious influences “Much Ado About Nothing,” as a text, had on the medium, it also has stuff nobody thinks about. Stuff that is tonally out-of-place from a modern perspective. Like the weirdly maudlin shift in the story after Claudio leaves Hero at the alter. Obviously things where different in Shakespeare time but it's odd, from a modern perspective, for a light-hearted comedy to feature a funeral.

You're notice I'm talking more about Shakespeare's “Much Ado About Nothing,” instead of Whedon's “Much Ado About Nothing.” There's an obvious reason for that. Whedon did not really change the script very much before filming it. He condensed it a bit, combined a few characters, changed a line of dialogue here or there. He also, ostensibly, moves the story into the modern day. So you have suits and dresses, instead of tights and gowns. Police officers with guns, instead of constables with swords. The sexual interaction that was only hinted is now a lot steamier. Still, this is an adaptation in a very literal sense, more about shifting the medium than changing the text.

As far as I can tell, the biggest addition Whedon makes to the material is some slapstick comedy. When Benedick overhears some people talking about his relationship with Beatrice, he quickly dives behind a sliding glass door. Not long after that scene, Beatrice is put in a similar sitution to eavesdrop on some people also talking about her and Benedick. She ends up stumbling down a flight of stairs before regaining her composure. Another funny bit has Benedick doing some impromptu push-ups while attempting to impress his love interest. It's the sort of light comedy that cuts through the denseness of the prose.

Apparently, that athletic display was thought up by Alexis Densioff, which goes to show you how valuable actors are to keeping this kind of material fresh. Anyone familiar with Whedon's television work, of course, knows Densioff as Wesley, from “Buffy' and “Angel.” The film pairs him with Amy Acker, who naturally played Fred, Wesley's eventual love interest. So the two already have a strong, workable chemistry. It turns out navigating Shakespeare and and Whedon's dialogue must be similar exercises. Acker and Densioff spit the elaborate dialogue with such ferocity, they make it look no great feat at all.

Whedon invites a lot of his company players along for this endeavor. Clark Gregg shows up as Leonato, bringing a due amount of respect to what is probably the most respectable part in the play. (Anthony Stewart Head was originally going to play the role, which would've been even better, but Agent Coulson had to step in.) Sean Mahler, “Firefly's” Simon, plays Don Carlos, one of the story's villains. Mahler is good at appearing sinister, as if he's plotting something bad. Nathan Fillion's complete fearlessness as a comic performer is put to good work as Dogberry, easily the play's funniest part. Riki Lindholm, who previously showed up on an episode of “Buffy,” also gets to use her natural sex appeal and talent for acerbic dialogue as Conrade. (A male part in the original text.)

Presumably to make the project seem even artier, Whedon made the decision to shoot “”Much Ado About Nothing” in black-and-white. It looks pretty. Cinematographer Jay Hunter works hard to make the single location look at interesting as possible. It is a very nice house. Hunter makes the whites very bright and the blacks very dark. Even if that funeral scene couldn't be more out of place, Hunter makes it the best scene in the movie on a visual level. Considering “Much Ado About Nothing” was a side project shot in the director's home, it's quite cinematic looking.

Hunter is the exception in the crew. Whedon directed the movie, adapted the script, edited it, produced it, and even wrote the music. Joss does a decent job at all of these things. The editing is pretty tight. The music is solid. It feels fittingly Shakespearean, composed of lilting pianos and simple cords. There's even two songs added to the score, both drawing their words from the Bard. “Sigh No More” has a catchy dream-pop melody, pretty female vocals, and a memorable chorus. “Heavily” is a sadder, darker song with similarly dreamy vocals and fittingly morose instrumentation.

As this review indicates, “Much Ado About Nothing” isn't really my kind of thing. It's by no means a bad movie. Considering it was shot in the director's free time, with the cast composed entirely of old friends,the finished product is relatively fleet-footed and satisfying. This is the kind of stuff you can do when you're the director of a massive blockbuster and the creator of a beloved television series. Yet any adaptation of Shakespeare that keeps the original text largely intact always ends up feeling more like an experiment than any sort of unique project. This is a variation on a theme, not a work meant to stand alone. I'm sure scholars have a lot more to say about this. I can only gleam so much. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Joss Whedon (2012)

2. The Avengers

When Marvel Studios decided to make “The Avengers,” they were really attempting to do something that had never quite been done before. Crossovers had happened before, sure. But an on-going series of interconnected adventures, with a large cast that could bounce back and forth between movies as needed, all leading up to a massive event film... It was something new, the comic book style storytelling truly coming to the big screen. By 2010, it was apparent that “The Avengers” was in fact going to be a real movie. So who was going to direct this massive undertaking, this crazy idea that had no guarantee of working? A man best known for screenwriting, who had worked largely in television, whose only previous big screen credit was a financial disappointment. I wasn't sure, at the time, that Joss Whedon was the right man for the job. In retrospect, this seems hilariously naive, since “The Avengers” wound up being an enormous success and totally changed the course of Hollywood filmmaking.

S.H.I.E.L.D .has collected the Tesseract, a cosmic cube that can open gateways across the universe. Out of that gateway emerges Loki, the Norse God of Chaos. Armed with a powerful staff that can control minds, Loki has come to Earth to prepare it for an invading army. S.H.I.E.L.D. now pulls together the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Billionaire-turned-armored crime fighter Iron Man, recently defrosted super soldier Captain America, master spy Black Widow, and the Incredible Hulk are soon joined by Thor, Loki's thundering brother, and previously brainwashed super-archer Hawkeye. But will even these extraordinary individuals be enough to save the world when Loki's army arrives?

“The Avengers” works and there's one very important reason why. The film understands each of its iconic characters perfectly. Never once does the story betray the central heroes' identities or make a false move. Captain America is a man out-of-time, in a modern world he doesn't entirely understand, but remains a figure of incorruptible principals. Thor and Loki operate in a world of mythic, quasi-Shakespearean high drama. The Hulk is half monster movie, half tragedy, a man desperate to control the beast inside. Black Widow is the super spy femme fatale, operating in shadowy rooms and always aware of how to play the situation to her advantage. Iron Man, as always, remains the smart-ass super-scientist thrill seeker. Marvel Studios took the time to established these characters and Whedon was smart enough to respect that work.

It was obvious, then and now, that Whedon's strength for working with ensembles was the biggest factor in him getting this gig. Joss knows how to balance a team. He smartly re-introduces each character in their own scene, letting the audience get to know them again. Afterwards, each team member is slotted into an identifiable role. Captain America is the leader, immediately commanding everyone strictly with the force of his personality. Iron Man has maybe the most skills and resources of anyone but his glib attitude and reckless actions make him ill-suited for leading. (TV Tropes calls this the Lancer.) Black Widow's mastery of emotional manipulation is a skill everyone else lacks. Banner is the brains and Thor is the muscle, except when the Hulk is around. Then we have two muscles. Nick Fury stands behind them all, calling the shots. There's a reason this kind of team set-up works. When everyone has a clear role, it allows everything to be organized around the characters' interaction.

Supposedly, “The Avengers” went through about a dozen rewrites before the final script was solidified. It's easy to see that Marvel, Whedon, and the rest of the team worked hard to fine-tune the story. “The Avengers'” narrative is assembled in such a satisfying manner. There's an elegance in the A-to-B way the characters are brought together. How Loki, and thus the story's threat, is immediately introduced. How S.H.I.E.L.D. brings the team together, how the crisis aboard the Helicarrier breaks them apart. How the death of Agent Coulson provides the emotional catalist to reunite the team. It all builds towards the extended showdown of the last act. Everyone gets an arc of their own, with Tony's – learning to fight for something bigger than himself – being the biggest. It's clean, concise, and focused. A story that is going to have a lot of moving parts by its very nature is made to look easy.

Certainly, after re-watching the film several times, I can appreciate the smoothness of “The Avengers'” writing. Watching the movie for the first time, in a theater packed with other nerds, I was most struck by the sheer joy “The Avengers” made me feel. Whedon and Marvel knew to deliver on the crowd-pleasing moments. The film is packed with them. The three way fight between Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America is the classic comic book “first they fight, then they team-up” moment. The first appearance of the Helicarrier is a moment imbued with a real sense of awe. The Hulk's rampage through the carrier climaxes with Thor summoning Mjolnier and clobbering him upside the head with it, a spectactular action beat. The final third is when the film really packs these in. Tony's suit assembling around him as he falls from a tower, the team assembling in a circle, the heroes teaming up in various duos against the alien forces. The Hulk killing a giant monster – everything leading up to that scene, really – with one punch or how Loki is defeated. They are all show stoppers, scenes designed to make people cheer.

Those that argue Marvel movies are made by commitee aren't entirely wrong. More often than not, the studio is the auteur in this scenario. Yet “The Avengers” is clearly a Joss Whedon film. No, not just because Black Widow is introduced in bondage or Pepper Potts is barefoot. Whedon's trademark, quick-witted dialogue is right at home. Robert Downey Jr. is especially gifted at these, when flirting with Pepper, joking about “Galuga” or Fury's eyepatch, or any other number of one-liner. Small lines – Loki being adopted, Cap getting a reference – become enormously funny thanks to the skill of the cast and how they're deliver. The truth is “The Avengers” is frequently hilarious, thanks to those non-stop quibs. Yes, it would eventually become a problem but it works fantastically here.

There are other ways Whedon was a good fit for “The Avengers.” The way Marvel makes its movies, in many ways, resembles television more than film. The interconnecting stories and characters means a certain status quo must be maintained. Not to mention their tight schedules and precisely planned budgets recall a TV production too. Whedon would be the first TV director to make the leap to superhero films, with Alan Taylor and, most notably, the Russo Brothers following in his footstep. I don't want every movie to be made this way and I certainly understand the objections people have to this. Yet it does work for Marvel.

By the same card, I think “The Avengers – and many of the other Marvel films, for that matter – look better than people give them credit for. Certainly, if you compare “The Avengers” to “Serenity,” you can see that Whedon's visual approach is far more cinematic and dramatic than before. There's a nice use of shadows in the earlier scenes. The extended action sequence that makes up the last third are fantastically shot and choreographed. A sweeping shot across the back of one of the massive vipers, as Thor and Hulk attack it, certainly sticks in the mind. Or a tracking shot of one of Hawkeye's arrow as it sails into Loki's hand. Speaking generally, the action in the last act kicks a lot of ass. The film continually finds new ways for its heroes to fight off the alien foot soldiers, keeping the action exciting and clearly depicted.

Of course, “The Avengers” had a bit of a short cut. Most of the principal cast members had already been cast, their character's origins already defined. If the superhero trend has made anything apparent, it's that casting is fifty percent of the job. And Marvel is extremely good at casting. Part of the joy of “The Avengers” is seeing these actors play off each other. Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans play off each other fantastically, making the necessary team bickering scene far more entertaining than they otherwise might've been. Chris Hemsworth's goofy side wasn't quite established yet but Thor does prove an excellent straight man. Scarlett Johannson and Jeremy Renner, ascending from supporting roles, prove themselves very able. Johannson is especially excellent, always hiding secrets, gather information, and acting in the role needed of her. Renner, shockingly, actually makes Hawkeye seem like a real bad-ass among his far more powerful team mates.

The third time's a charm when it came to casting a cinematic Bruce Banner. Mark Ruffalo is more charmingly nerdy than Edward Norton's Banner, while never leaving behind the uncertainty and fear inside the man. He has especially excellent chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. Samuel L. Jackson's way with words is greatly used for both a rousing monologue and an attitude-filled interjection. Agent Coulson was really just a minor supporting character up to this point but he has a pivotal role to play here. Clark Gregg's charming, everyman presence absolutely cements that. Lastly, Thomas Hiddleston is delightfully devious, playing Loki at his most sadistic and conniving. You can tell Hiddleston really relishes the chance to ham it up this way.

However, Loki's characterization does create something of an inconsistency. Marvel likes to pretend they have everything planned out years in advance. Going back and re-watching the first “Avengers” after the so-called Infinity Saga has wrapped, you really notice how untrue that is. Loki acts so differently from the more sympathetic depictions in the “Thor” films, that there's recently been a sloppy retcon of Thanos manipulating his personality. Thanos, as briefly depicted here, neither looks nor acts much like the character that would come to be. He resembles his comic book counterpart more, in appearance and motivation. The villainous smile he gives upon hearing the words “courting death” is, in retrospect, totally meaningless. What he actually hoped to accomplish on Earth is not clear. Especially when you think about the locations of the various Infinity Stones. None of this really matters or impedes my enjoyment of the film any but it is funny to think about.

Lastly, I have to praise the movie's soundtrack. The most iconic superhero movies have equally memorable and powerful music, that pairs perfectly with the characters. John Williams' “Superman” score, Danny Elfman's “Batman” score, and Basil Poledouris' “RoboCop” score are previous examples of this. I would place Alan Silvestri's score for “The Avengers” in the same category. The main themes combine pounding, metallic percussion with rising strings. Is there a better audio representation of heroism rising up out of chaos and danger? The music builds in such a fantastic way, to ramp up excitement and a sense of adventure. I'll also admit to liking the cheesy Audioslave song that plays over the end credits, a decent bit of driving radio rock, perhaps because I'm nostalgic for the days when blockbuster movies were paired with blockbuster songs.

“The Avengers” remains one of my favorite film-going experiences. With two of my oldest and best friends, both also huge nerds, I drove out to the midnight debut at a local theater. Some of the people in line that night were wearing homemade costumes. The crowd could not have been more into it. There was cheering, laughing, clapping, at all the right spots. I left with a contact high afterwards. That's the magic of the movies, the way they can pull a room full of strangers together into a communal experience. Yes, I acknowledge the corrosiveness  of the unending blockbuster machine, on both the film industry and the creative process. “The Avengers” is not groundbreaking because of its story, direction, acting, or thematic weight. Yet it is undeniably a great piece of entertainment, a massively satisfying blockbuster that succeeds at everything it sets out to do. That counts for a lot too. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Joss Whedon (2005)

Is Joss Whedon the most divisive figure in all of nerddom? Well, probably not, but the fact of the matter is Whedon is not the universally beloved icon he once was. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” maintains a die hard following to this day while still being a hugely influential show, on the way television series are written and planned. His script doctor work lent his immediately recognizable voice to blockbusters like “Speed” and “Toy Story.” His hyper-verbal, frequently sarcastic dialogue – which many debate the merits of – is undeniably distinctive. And the case can certainly be made that, without Whedon, Marvel's “Avengers” franchise – and the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe and every affect it's had on blockbuster cinema in the last decade – wouldn't have been as monstrously successful.

Yet the three-part punch of one really poorly written scene in an overstuffed sequel, some unflattering revelations about his personal life, and the fetish-y “Dollhouse” coming and going without much impact had an obvious effect on his career. It caused even his most faithful fans to re-evaluate his previous work, often in a critical light. I am, of course, getting ahead of myself. While you really have to talk about Whedon's television work to do a proper retrospective of his career, I'll just be focusing on his theatrical credits here. (This is, obviously, my belated conclusion to my wildly out-of-order trip through the Marvel Cinematic Universe too. So I'll be including some bonus reviews too.)

1. Serenity

Before we talk about “Serenity,” one must really discuss “Firefly.” As the second series from Joss Whedon, whose cultishly adored “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” had recently been saved from the grave, it was greeted with a high degree of hype from a certain audience. Yet “Firefly” would be badly mishandled by Fox, who stuck the show in a bad time slot and aired episodes out of order. An insanely passionate fanbase sprung forth to annoy everyone on the internet but it wasn't enough to save the series. Shortly after its cancellation, “Firefly” – including several episodes which never aired – would be released on DVD. At the time, the TV-on-DVD market was booming and “Firefly” would become a big home media seller. It was this successful afterlife that convinced Whedon and Universal Pictures to resurrect “Firefly” as “Serenity,” a movie continuation and Whedon's cinematic directorial debut.

If you're reading this, you know all that already. In 2020, does “Firefly” hold up? The series takes its space western premise – which was doubtlessly influenced by anime series like “Outlaw Star, “ despite Whedon's insistence otherwise – far too literally. Whedon's attempts to paint his protagonists as both morally gray anti-heroes and principled freedom fighters often came off as clumsy. The special effects, action sequences, and general visual approach appear hopelessly cheap and dated now. Knowing what we now know about Whedon's personal life, many of the show's elements – equally revered and humiliated space courtesan Inuara and mentally-ill but super-special teenage girl River – come off as more than a little icky. Yet the characters and cast were great. The dialogue was often memorable. The premise, corniness and all, was a lot fun. When the writing and the cast were aligned, great episodes like “Jaynestown,” “Ariel,” and “Objects in Space” did emerge.

I was less critical of the show when I, then a huge “Buffy” fan, watched it on DVD in 2003. In fact, I loved it. So I was hugely excited for “Serenity” when it hit theaters in autumn of 2005. Perhaps these expectations were why I was so disappointed in “Serenity” at first. But let's summarize the plot first. The crew of the smuggling ship Serenity, veterans of a civil war against a galactic Alliance, is led by the fiercely independent Malcolm Reynolds. For a year now, the Serenity has had Simon and River Tam, fugitives from the Alliance, aboard. River's growing psychic abilities, results of testing by the Alliance, cause a dangerously calculated Operative to pursue. Soon, this chase heads across the universe and leads the crew of the Serenity to uncover the horrible secrets behind the Reavers, the cannibalistic madmen that roam space.

As a feature film,“Serenity” faced some rather unique challenges. “Firefly” was not a ratings success. That's why it was canceled after eleven episodes. “Serenity” had to justify its forty million dollar budget – not enormous but certainly not a pittance either – by expanding outside the cult following and appealing to as wide an audience as possible. At the same time, “Serenity” had to satisfy the hopes and dreams of thousands of die hard “Firefly” fans. It's a dual goal the finished film can't live up to. New viewers were surely baffled by the attention paid to Shepherd Book, a character who wanders in and out of the story with little explanation. The same audience probably couldn't really grasp the will-they-won't-they flirtations between Mal and Inara or Kaylee and Simon. Yet long time fans were likely frustrated by the way those subplots are awkwardly set-up via rushed dialogue. Or the amount of time spent re-introducing the familiar faces. It's a tall order and it's no wonder that “Serenity” has trouble fulfilling it.

If that had been the only challenge facing “Serenity,” maybe the film could've pulled it off. Instead, “Serenity” also had to be the big budget, theatrical debut of a filmmaker who had previously only directed television. After recently re-watching all of “Firefly,” I can say that Whedon's episodes were not the best looking or most cinematic, often utilizing ugly crash-zooms and bland, blanketing lighting. He does try to do better here. “Serenity” has some fantastic production design. The ships, sets, and props all look wonderful, the film clearly having more money at its disposal than the show. The “Blade Runner” inspired urban locations are fittingly atmospheric in presentation. Yet “Serenity” does have unusually murky cinematography, making many of the later scenes hard to follow. At times, such as a “Star Trek”-like shot of a shaking spaceship interior or a sudden zoom on a rotten face, this studio film still looks an awful lot like an episode of weekly TV series.

“Serenity” doesn't just hope to remind people that it's a movie, and not a TV show, in its visual approach. Whedon's script is clearly eager to expand beyond the scope of a television series. “Serenity” opens with a daring escape sequence, depicted in a very action-packed way, how Simon and River initially alluded the Alliance. The film concludes with a massive space battle, set-up by one of the story's few satisfying twist. Yet what Whedon chooses to focus on is sometimes baffling. The decision to turn vulnerable, schizophrenic girl River into a kung-fu fighting, hyper-confident warrior woman still comes out of nowhere. The big reveal of the film's second half, the horrible secret origins of the Reavers, is... Underwhelming. Some dumbass experiment happened, and the space psychoes were an unintended (and nonsensical) side-effect. The origins behind “Firefly's” central monsters, never as scary as the show needed them to be, were better left a mystery.

If some of the choices “Serenity” makes are odd or aggravatingly unexpected, a few of its narrative decisions are outright sadistic. After seven seasons of “Buffy” and five seasons of “Angel,” it became clear that Joss Whedon had a habit of introducing lovable characters and then putting them through merciless hell. This usually climaxed in someone dying in a needlessly mean manner. Because “Serenity” is following a one season wonder, it has to shove a whole season of dramatic deaths into two hours. So two major characters are killed off suddenly. Yes, I know the bluntness of the deaths were precisely the point. That's what happens in war. Yet the glee with which Whedon deploys these heart-crushing murders is felt too keenly. Wash and Shepherd Book don't die because the story needed it. They die because Joss Whedon wanted to shock and infuriate his fans. And then Mal's life is saved by a previously unmentioned war wound, the kind of half-assed deus ex machina Whedon really should've known better than to resort to.

If “Serenity's” narrative choices are sloppy or mean-spirited at times, that's because the film is too determined to pursue its thematic goal. Ya see, “Serenity” is About Something. “Firefly” always flirted with the idea of Mal and his merry band representing independence and freedom in the face of the authoritarian Alliance. (Never mind that the Brown Coats are visually patterned after the Confederacy, bringing to mind some truly unfortunate implications.) “Serenity” takes this idea and never stops running with it. Mal does what he wants, which causes a schism to form between him and Simon early on. The Alliance is so determined to make people follow the rules, they actually created a pacifying gas that made a planet lay down and die. The crew of the “Serenity” are free birds that can't be caged, their actual actions being interrogated in only the most superfacial of ways, standing up against a cartoonishly evil force of tyranny that is barely developed beyond that idea.

Maybe “Serenity” wouldn't have so many of these issues if it wasn't trying to be the second season of “Firefly.” Maybe Whedon simply should've taken one stand alone script and blown it up to feature length. Because the film works best when focusing in on the small stuff. The opening heist, in which Reynolds' gang busts into an Alliance bank and makes off with some gold, is fun. It's the only time “Serenity” feels truly in touch with its western adventure show roots. Another baffling plot point involves River's secret programming being awaken by a television commercial. Yet the colorful weirdness of that scene is something the rest of the film is sorely lacking. “Serenity” shouldn't have been bigger than “Firefly” necessarily. It should've been weirder and wider, while maintaining the humble spirit that made the original series entertaining.

What keeps the film truly functioning is the same thing that often kept Whedon's shows afloat, even during dire plot points like Buffy and Spike boinking or Cordelia's pregnancy turning her evil. That would be the cast. Even though “Serenity” is more about River than Mal, the film still tries to turn Nathan Fillian into an action star. It honestly almost works. Fillian has a gift for comedic dialogue and comical stumbling, yet has the stout chin required of a two-fisted hero. He finds a solid foil in Chiwetel Elijfor as the Operative, a lawful evil adversary of steely focus. Adam Baldwin is also deeply underutilized as Jayne, the brutish mercenary who is essentially reduced to “Serenity's” (consistently hilarious) comic relief. The adorableness of Jewel Stait makes even the film's worst line – about 'lectrics and neithers – a solid laugher.

Yet “Serenity” clearly does struggle to balance its cast. That's why the late, great Ron Glass only gets two scenes as Shepherd Book, one of my favorite characters from the show. One of the regular cast members had to be reduced so the audience wasn't overwhelmed. Morena Baccarin's Inara almost got cut too but the film brings her into the story through a rather awkward plot twist. I can't imagine if a “Firefly” newbie truly had a chance to get attached to Zoe and Wash's loving marriage, considering neither are given much to actually do. (Though Alan Tudyk still gets a couple of great moments.) It's mildly annoying that so much attention is focused on River Tam becoming a wannabe Slayer, as Summer Glau is better served shrieking with madness than kicking ass.

And speaking of kicked asses... Whedon would eventually become the director of billion-dollar grossing action spectacles. Which is sort of funny, as “Buffy” and “Firefly's” action sequences were always modest. You can see the director struggling to adapt to the needs of an action narrative here. The shoot-outs with the Reavers are never as intense as they need to be, guns going off and bad guys falling down off-screen. River's multiple elaborate fisticuffs are slightly better directed, even if her “Kill Bill”-like final stand against the space cannibals is more melodramatic than satisfyingly climatic. An early chase scene with a small Reaver vessal is probably the best action beat in the movie, Jayne pulled overboard by a harpoon. “Serenity's” modest television roots and medium sized budget is evident in many scenes.

Though primed to launch a franchise, “Serenity's” underwhelming box office gross – barely breaking even – did not led to that. Though the Browncoats have constantly, loudly demanded more, the only follow-ups have been in the form of comic books. Here's a hard truth. “Serenity” was never going to be a hit. “Firefly” was not the zeitgeist-capturing cult phenomenon “Buffy” was. It was a niche program with an fanatically devoted, obsessive fan base. It was nice that Universal ponied up the cash necessary for Whedon to give his beloved series something like a proper conclusion. Yet this was never going to cross over with a wide audience. Here's another, even harder truth. “Firefly” was actually better off as a short-lived oddity, allowed to hint at a wider mythology and allowing its true joys – a wonderful cast, a neat setting – just enough time to breath. “Serenity” struggles to please multiple audiences and goals, never quite hitting any of its marks. [Grade: C+]