By Max Kull

​

In the summer of 2012, the world was taken by shock by the release of the Avengers- the film that arguably made the Marvel Cinematic Universe what it is today, and went against the norm of the traditional comic book movie. Having been built up for four years with a series of five feature films, all with their own unique stories and identity, the Avengers phenomenon swept the nation, and audiences swarmed theaters to see the entourage of their favorite heroes assemble for the first time on the big screen. Due to the film’s success, it’s no surprise that a sequel was on the way, and in 2014 came Avengers: Age of Ultron - the ‘Avengers equivalent’ to the MCU’s Phase 2 slate of films. Surely the sequel to one of the highest grossing and beloved comic book films of all time would live up to the hype, right?

 

Well… the box office numbers did. Age of Ultron is something I would consider a- complicated- situation, to put it bluntly. 

 

Let’s dive into what works and what doesn’t. The film takes place a few years after the events of the Battle of New York, with the Avengers working together independently after the fall of SHIELD, the organization run by Nick Fury who initially brought the team together. While on a mission to take back Loki’s scepter- the mind stone- from the clutches of HYDRA, Wanda Maximoff and her brother Pietro cause trouble for the team (namely Tony Stark, who has since been paranoid of the looming threat of the aliens who attacked New York years prior). In an attempt to protect the world from his worst fears, he and Bruce Banner use the mind stone to create Ultron, an android with incredibly advanced artificial intelligence which has been programmed to protect the world at all costs, no matter what may stand in its way. What could go wrong?

 

When this movie first came out, I did enjoy it- and still do as it accomplishes much more than the first Avengers installment. While the first Avengers is a solid summer blockbuster- that’s really all it feels like. It’s the bare minimum of a superhero ensemble film, but that’s only because that’s all it had to be- there was no reason for it to be complicated. This movie, however, manages to expand upon the characters themselves, leading to some of the most interesting dynamics and examples of character development that come into play in big ways down the road in the greater MCU. However, it should be noted that more doesn’t always translate to better. More on that later.

 

Another area where this film shines are its action sequences. We get many more big scale and interesting locations where we get to see the Avengers in action. From the Hulkbuster vs Hulk fight in Africa, to the eastern European setting of the nation of Sokovia- this movie takes the Avengers out of New York and it really drives the idea that they are heroes to the whole world- which in turn, leads to higher stakes and even more devastating consequences. The new character additions are fantastic as well. Elizabeth Olsen makes her second appearance as Wanda Maximoff, an incredible character who would go on to play an enormous role in the franchise, Paul Bettany makes his debut as the stoic Vision, and James Spader truly manages to win over audiences with his chilling motion capture performance as Ultron. He essentially plays the villain as a rogue android version of Pinocchio- one who has it out for his Geppetto, who in this case is Tony Stark.

 

So then what’s the damage? While I hate to single out particular individuals, I will stand by my opinion that director Joss Whedon’s creative vision was to blame for the many problems found in this movie. From a romance plot that makes no sense being incorporated in this film, to tasteless jokes centered around Black Widow, Whedon’s execution of these scenes come off as corny, tone-deaf, and borderline disrespectful to her character. Whedon not only doesn’t know how to work with female characters in his movies, but takes too many creative liberties of his own, many of which jump the gun and deter from the greater MCU timeline (yes, he actually wanted to introduce Spider-Man and Captain Marvel in the final scene of this movie). The movie suffers mainly in the third act with pacing issues; the final battle is long, and not in a good way. Instead of stunning camera work or creative action scenes, we are given way too many jokes that do not land, awkward cut-aways, and a bland color palette- perhaps the worst I’ve seen in an MCU flick.

 

Whedon’s films also struggle with tonal issues, and this is very noticeable coming off of a project like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, directed by the Russo Brothers (who thankfully would later go on to make the third and fourth Avengers instalments). While MCU films range in tone, with the Guardians of the Galaxy movies being musical space operas, and Ant-Man being inspired by heist films, the Avengers movies have always been in line with the spy-thriller tone of Captain America’s later instalments. Seeing these characters written in his corny sense of humour blended with the colourless, stale shots just don’t work and come off as imbalanced. The reason they worked so well in the first movie was because the plot was straightforward and lacked unnecessary subplots- this just felt like Whedon bit off a little more than he could chew.

 

The reason the negatives are much more apparent than the positives are because of the standards this film had to live up to. Being a sequel to the Avengers, one of the biggest comic book films of all time, audiences were ready to experience nothing but an upgrade to the first movie. This film delivered in some of those wishes with great character moments and a good villain, but ultimately fell short within its convoluted tone, random subplots, and poor writing with jokes that come off as more cringe worthy than funny, even for MCU humour standards. Thankfully, we later got two sequels directed by the Russo Brothers better than the first two instalments combined, so with that in mind, I don’t feel too bad about giving this film...