The first film worked so well at creating Iron Man’s back-story and showed how well certain rock music can lift a film’s energy just by their mere presence. The second film squandered most of that good will with a poor choice of casting and weak story. Welcome round three and in the now almost obligatory for films of this type, 3D format.

Try as the film does for some real surprise story moments and to flush out the main characters lives, it really lets the side down but as an exercise is visual film making it is pretty impressive for now. The real problem with such special effects driven films is that as the technology improves and our internal database of CGI images grows exponentially we soon loose the sense of wonder and are left with just the story to enthral us. This is not one of those films that in the future will be viewed over and over.

The hype and energy of a major release seen in its early days always sways the audience to a more favourable experience and my recommendation is to see this early when the cinemas are full and the combined crowd energy is at its peak.

Rob Hudson
www.marvel.com

Iron Man 2 is certainly bigger, with an obviously enlarged budget, the film is packed with more expensive looking special effects and even more gratuitous over the top action. The film’s final duke-out is magnified as well with the addition of a very large number of baddies and an overabundance of explosive effects. The story also gets ramped up as we meet Tony Stark’s father (in flashback home movies) and get some welcome insight into his childhood.

Some of the relationships from the first film are also developed slightly with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and the film’s director Jon Favreau as Tony’s chauffeur, Happy Hogan getting more screen time. There are also a number of new characters that are introduced including Scarlett Johansson with tight black leather and a secret identity and Mickey Rourke as the new nemesis, Ivan Vanko. The film is certainly not resting on its laurels with characterization.

The film tries its best with a back-story of military intervention, the budding romance between Stark and his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Iron Man having to face his own mortality. It’s just that with this mad rush into impressing audience members with its bigger is better attitude, it loses a lot of the charm and swarm that made the first edition so memorable.

Rob Hudson
www.ironmanmovie.marvel.com

Thor: The Dark World is not as interesting as its predecessor and that film was by no means the best of The Avengers tie-in prequels. From frost giants in the first film to dark elves here, the villains are getting smaller and so is the scope of the films. This is a stock action CGI fantasy where nothing new is learnt about any of the characters; it’s merely goodies versus baddies, albeit presented in a slick and entertaining package. The 3D presentation makes little use of depth and is unworthy of the ticket premium.

After sitting the game out in The Avengers, Natalie Portman (Jane Foster) returns and is shoe-horned into the action by some amazing strokes of coincidence (which is never satisfactorily explained). Tom Hiddleston (Loki) scores the most interesting subplot and Kat Dennings (Darcy) steals every scene she’s in. Chris Hemsworth flexes his pecs once or twice (or maybe even thrice) and fulfils his obligations to the project.

Suffering from sequelitis, Thor: The Dark World is saved by token of its fun factor and, like its predecessor, is a harmless piece of fluff (but not quite as good).

Stuart Jamieson
www.marvel.com/thor

Compared to that other great superhero ensemble flick (no, not Fantastic Four!), Bryan Singer’s X-Men, The Avengers is the kitschy one of the two but it is no less a film. Whedon shows that he knows how to do kitsch without descending into a tired, boring, groan-inducing cliché (like Fantastic Four). Of course Whedonphiles have known this for many years and now the rest of the world will know it.

The primary difficulty in an ensemble film such as this is making sure that each character within the film has enough space to develop. The Avengers has an advantage here in that Marvel have taken the time and expense to develop most of the characters externally in their own franchises but even so, Whedon has done exceptionally well in giving each hero a respectable amount of screen time so that no one (almost) is short changed. No one character is elevated above another, they are all equals. This principle has most importantly been applied to The Hulk.

As the least glamorous member of the team (he’s big, green, angry and barely talks), Whedon has smartly elevated Hulk to the biggest, baddest ass on the team. He’s the one that nobody has successfully controlled (with the exception, perhaps, of his alter ego, Bruce Banner); no force has subdued him; no weapon has destroyed him; everyone is shit scared of him. When faced with an angry Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), the demonstrably deadly Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) stands her ground but is clearly petrified of him. The Hulk is the trickiest character to handle and Whedon does so elegantly.

Likewise performances are good from the entire cast. Iron Man naturally gets all the best lines given Robert Downey Jr’s ability to deliver them with aplomb. Black Widow is given the most character development (appropriate since she has not had a movie of her own) and Johansson does well with the subtleties of her character as she wields her personal vulnerabilities like weapons. Samuel Jackson is just Samuel and we love him for it. Hawk Eye (Jeremy Renner) is short changed a little on character development but perhaps he’ll be fleshed out further in future installments. In any case, he’s not a major player in this plot line. Chris Evans will be pleased that hardly anyone will remember his role in Fantastic Four and his performance here will erase that memory completely.

The action is suitably spectacular but that’s par for the course these days. Nothing feels slow throughout the proceedings; the action, dialogue and plot snaps along nicely and the script feels like it has spent exactly the right time in development to iron out all the wrinkles, which is refreshing.

As good as this film is, however, it does represent yet another needless application of 3D technology. This seemingly endless tirade of 3D blockbusters has become positively tiresome. Like most before it, 3D adds very little to this film; if anything it’s a distraction. 3D films present completely differently to their 2D counterparts – and not usually in a good way. The 3D effect forces you to focus on very specific parts of the scene, specifically (and literally) the focus or subject of the image, to the exclusion of everything else. It induces a kind of tunnel vision in the viewer. Watching a 2D variant, more detail is apparent in the background, as we’re not being directly distracted by whatever is hovering in front of our noses – much like a magician’s trick. That we see more detail in a 2D image is contrary to our expectations of 3D, which is meant to be a heightened experience. This needn’t be a bad thing, however. Like any other cinematic device, it could be used to good effect (it could have useful applications in horror movies, for instance) but it shouldn’t be overdone, as is the case with this currently endless slew of 3D flicks. The best 3D movie in recent times is easily Hugo. Clearly Scorsese understands the tool and is smart enough to know how to use it effectively and appropriately.

That aside, The Avengers will do well at the box office and it deserves to, and Joss Whedon will get his long overdue just desserts into the bargain.

Stuart Jamieson
www.theavengers.com.au