Connect with us

Film

‘Avengers: Infinity War’ Is Too Busy for Its Own Good

‘Infinity War’ is weighed down by endless superheroes, most reduced to cameo status. They’ve stuffed this turkey to the point of bursting.

Published

on

Marvel Studios is lying to you, and they have been since you first saw the title of their newest film, Avengers: Infinity War. Anyone seeing that might assume it was a film starring roughly the same combination of superheroes as the last two Avengers films, give or take a few. In reality, the studio should have just called this The Marvel Movie, because its ambitions are to combine as many superheroes as possible (excepting the ones they don’t currently have the rights to). Not since the heyday of ‘70s disaster flicks has a film been so saturated with star power. Directed by Joe and Anthony Russo, Infinity War is weighed down by endless superheroes, most reduced to cameo status; they’ve stuffed this turkey to the point of bursting.

The broad strokes of Infinity War have been known for a surprisingly long time — its villain, Thanos (Josh Brolin), has had his hand in the pot at least since the first Avengers. His initial goal was to collect a series of “infinity stones,” little gems that grant their wielder power over the fabric of the universe. Once Thanos has all six stones (which he affixes on his bedazzled gauntlet), he plans to initiate a genocide reaching every corner of the universe.

Infinity War is the rare film that damages the legacies of the works that came before it.

One might think an Avengers movie would belong to Captain America (Chris Evans) or Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), but Infinity War is mostly Brolin’s film. Marvel movies spend so much time creating snarky, likeable heroes that they almost invariably run out of steam when it comes to the villains. Brolin’s Thanos is one of only a handful of compelling antagonists the studio has ever created. He’s the beneficiary of a back story that proves surprisingly emotional, one touched by loss and regret. It doesn’t hurt that there’s only one of him to contrast against a bajillion heroes crammed in. The character also benefits from better than usual CGI — despite some surprisingly clunky effects  — all the characters with robotic suits suffer from floating head syndrome whenever they take their helmets off — Thanos is surprisingly solid and textured.

Avengers: Infinity War

Still, a somewhat complicated villain isn’t enough to make it all work. Infinity War is the rare sequel that damages the legacies of the works that came before it. The central conflict between Captain America and Iron Man that animated Captain America: Civil War (2016) is largely glossed over, a casualty of a plot that doesn’t have enough time to devote to them — even at 2 hours and 29 minutes. The previous Avengers films and Civil War portrayed Steve Rogers as the heart and conscience of the superhero group, but he’s given an utterly thankless and minuscule part in Infinity War. Iron Man, Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) fare better, but only ever so slightly. Despite a massive battle sequence that takes place in Wakanda, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) and the other Black Panther characters are barely there. Not exactly a sign of respect for what is currently the 10th-highest-grossing film of all time.

Infinity War devotes the most screen time to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and the various Guardians of the Galaxy, who have collectively come to represent the comedy caucus of the Marvel Universe. Hemsworth isn’t quite as wisecracking as he was under Taika Waititi, but his character has still retained some of the humor of Thor: Ragnarok (2017). However, the bulk of the comic relief is delivered by the duo of Chris Pratt and Dave Bautista, who get a nice rhythm going, only to have the film yank the carpet from under them by switching to a much dourer mood. The Russo brothers along with screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely attempt to subtly modulate the tones, but their touch is too harsh. Even Peter Parker’s usual light-hearted banter rings false amidst the destruction wrought by Thanos.

Avengers: Infinity War

It shouldn’t be a spoiler (as it’s both meaningless and widely-reported) but people die in Infinity War, for different reasons, at different times, and in different ways. This could have been a positive development for Marvel and the Avengers — there are simply too many heroes, and some actors are nearing the end of their contracts, so culling the herd would be a smart move. Yet Infinity War makes the very concept of death even more meaningless than past Marvel films, which is saying something. We know just from the fact that they’re appearing in future movies that at least some of these characters didn’t really die, or at least not forever. If those departed can come back, what would stop Marvel from resurrecting every fallen hero? The studio has tried to make the largest superhero film ever with the greatest stakes imaginable, yet they’ve actually lowered the stakes more than any previous entry. Never again will viewers be justifiably anxious about the fate of their favorite Marvel characters — Infinity War throws that all out the window.

It’s tempting to heap all these complaints on the backs of the Russos and the screenwriters, but that wouldn’t be completely fair. After all, Marvel head Kevin Feige has shepherded this shared universe from the beginning; the directors work for him. There are some moving moments in the film that hearken to the Russos’ work on the Captain America films, still, some of the best Marvel movies, and Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana’s chemistry has been steadily honed since their first Guardians film, to the point that it’s now a well-oiled machine. There’s also a poignant scene shared between Parker and Tony Stark that almost makes up for their otherwise shallow arcs, while nearly every scene with Thanos hints at how successful Infinity War might have been if some of the extraneous warriors had been culled.

Despite those strong points, Avengers: Infinity War is still a jumbled mess. If the film stumbled, or made a suboptimal amount of cash, Marvel might reevaluate its strategy, but that’s not likely to happen. Infinity War will make a heap of dough, and Marvel will continue to make their films bigger — but not necessarily better.

Avengers: Infinity War

Brian Marks is Sordid Cinema's Lead Film Critic. His writing has appeared in The Village Voice, LA Weekly, The Los Angeles Times, and Ampersand. He's a graduate of USC's master's program in Specialized Arts Journalism. You can find more of his writing at InPraiseofCinema.com. Best film experience: driving halfway across the the country for a screening of Jean-Luc Godard's "King Lear." Totally worth it.

5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Ricky D Fernandes

    April 29, 2018 at 10:41 am

    I did not expect to love this movie as much as I do. I honestly think this is one of the best Marvel movies to date and the primary reason is that of Thanos. You mention how great his character is so we agree on this, but in all honesty, while I would normally prefer a movie that can stand on its own without needing to set up the next film, I thought this movie is incredibly well structured. I actually think they did a great job in shoving two dozen superheroes into one movie, because they never lost focus on the two most important characters to this chapter: Tony Stark and Thanos. I honestly can’t think of a better way for them to have made this movie with so many characters.

    • Ricky D Fernandes

      April 29, 2018 at 10:43 am

      Also, I have to admit, that I cried when Spidey (SPOILER) and was pretty amazed at how they managed to have many scenes mirror the comic book.

      • Ricky D Fernandes

        April 29, 2018 at 12:37 pm

        Also, what do you mean by:
        “Infinity War is the rare film that damages the legacies of the works that came before it.”

        Aren’t most sequels not as good, and often, bad?

        • Brian Marks

          April 29, 2018 at 4:31 pm

          Yeah, most sequels are worse, but I don’t think anyone views the first two Godfather films less positively because the third one isn’t very good. But these Marvel films are a different beast because they’re so interconnected. When they give Black Panther only a handful of lines or barely give the impact of Civil War any weight, it feels like they’re dismissing their own movies.

  2. John Cal McCormick

    May 2, 2018 at 6:17 am

    I don’t really understand the argument that this movie damages the legacy of previous movies because they weren’t mentioned enough, or delved into in enough detail. Like, we don’t need people chewing on about what happened in Civil War because we saw Civil War. We know how it panned out. We know the Avengers collapsed. And in this movie they’re disparate, and broken, and “not really on speaking terms.”

    We didn’t need somebody to pop up and say, “Hey, remember that time…” to pay it the proper respects. The odd comment was enough. Similarly, Black Panther’s legacy isn’t tarnished because he, and his side-kicks, didn’t get a bigger part. Black Panther isn’t a massively important character in this story, and he doesn’t have to be. That’s fine. Just because we like him doesn’t mean he has to be present at every team meeting. I’m sure he won’t feel left out. He seems emotionally strong enough to deal with it.

    The fact is, they had to tie together like twenty movies and fifty characters or something into one big plot that kinda works, and I’m amazed it worked as well as it did. They didn’t have time to be all, oh hey let’s see what’s happening in Wakanda. They had to get a bunch of characters who’d never met together in different parts of the universe in service of a huge overarching plot, and I think they did that very well.

    They made sure that the important characters got time – Tony Stark, Thor, Star-Lord & Gamora, Strange, Vision, and Thanos – in service of the story, while the other heroes were there for backup, with some of those that were short changed in this movie presumably getting more time in the next. And I do think that Thanos was a strong enough villain (and character) to carry the movie and hold together the many disparate elements. He was the common thread throughout all of the stories, and had he not been a compelling villain it would have collapsed. But he really owned the screen every time he was on, and I actually wound up caring about his story.

    There are certainly issues with Infinity War, but these don’t seem like problems to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

Film

‘Rojo’ Takes Carefully Composed Aim at Argentina’s Murky Past

Published

on

Getting off to a creepy and crackling start, Benjamín Nasihtat’s Rojo can’t quite live up to its opening promise while admirably trying to navigate a muddied maze of vague suspicion around a small town in Argentina during the 1970s before the coup. Still, though the story bumps into a few dead ends before finally emerging into some light at the finish, exquisite compositions — punctuated by occasional bursts that mimic the time period’s cinematic style — and a quietly simmering performance from star Darío Grandinetti manage to keep things engaging enough throughout this low-key thriller.

Rojo vacation

After a mysterious opening shot in which an abandoned house in a pleasant neighborhood is calmly looted by various locals, Rojo directs our attention to a cozy, upscale restaurant where respectable lawyer Claudio sits alone, waiting for his wife, courteously acknowledged by other similarly well-off patrons. He draws the ire of another customer, who abrasively chides Claudio for occupying a table when he is not ready to order, thus depriving those who are. Pretending to take the higher road, Claudio gives up his seat, but can’t resist also giving this rude young man a lecture of his own — one that despite its refined vocabulary, smacks of hostile superiority. From there, an altercation ensues that will not only haunt Claudio for the rest of the film, but also stand for a certain societal rot that took over a country.

The sequence is chilling in its callousness, the way in which a person is removed from a restaurant — and a community — with nary a blink of an eye; soon, everyone is back to chattering away, enjoying their meals as if a mere pest had entered and was quickly shooed away. Beneath their civilized faces, however, their are subtle signs of deep unease. Rojo expertly creates a tension here that it will then go on to very slowly dilute, as more and more tangents are given prominence in an attempt to reinforce already clear themes without shedding new light on them.

Rojo locker room

The paranoia and guilt lurking beneath nearly every interaction in Rojo serves to bring attention to the various disappearances that take place and are alluded to throughout the story. That fear of being “disappeared” without a trace is a clear reference to the “los desaparecidos” — political dissidents from the era who either fled the country or were kidnapped and murdered in the wake of a military coup that wanted to silence opposition. The premise that one can suddenly say the wrong thing and summarily be erased from society while everyone looks the other way is an inherently scary one, and that pervading atmosphere goes a long way toward making Rojo highly watchable.

However, once the general idea is firmly and skillfully established, Rojo seems to have little place else to go with it. A subplot involving selling the house from the prologue is mildly interesting in how it portrays the opportunistic behavior that capitalized on atrocity, but the process eventually fizzles out. American rodeo cowboys pay a visit, alluding to U.S. involvement during the coup, but not much else. A trip to the beach perhaps shows a bit of the pressure that gets to those who have had to turn a blind eye for so long, but little else is garnered outside a stylish depiction of a solar eclipse that washes the screen symbolic red. A teenage romance seems like it’s reaching for something important to say about dominance and jealousy, but can’t come up with more than another disappearance — and of a character who might as well be a nobody regardless, for the few minutes they are on screen.

A missing doctor, a magician’s act, a church confrontation; the power of the vanishings is undermined somewhat by their frequency. But maybe that’s the point — that we all can be desensitized to injustice.

Rojo teens

Still, whether or not one finds meaning, it’s hard to take one’s eyes off such gorgeously composed images as Nasihtat has crafted here. Though its plot often seems to lack focus, Rojo still emits a feeling of pinpoint exactitude through pictures. Nearly every frame is a joy to examine, creating a palpable sense that angles and staging have been meticulously prepared to convey important information key to unlocking the script’s mysteries. Restrained use of zooms and freeze frames also help inject some period style into the proceedings, and can be effectively startling. Holding it all together though is the repressed performance of Darío Grandinetti, who masterfully finds the quiet fear and hypocrisy in a certain kind of ‘upright’ citizen. As the various pressures grow (including from a big-city TV investigator played by Alfredo Castro), will he be able to hold it together?

The payoff is a bit anti-climactic, but Rojo has already been trending that way since the beginning. Nevertheless, it does conclude on a more explicit note, and there is a great visual pleasure to be had from simply watching this story unfold in such sharp, capable filmmaking hands.

‘Rojo’ is now available on digital formats from 1844 Entertainment.

Continue Reading

Film

‘Queen of Hearts’ is a Frank and Difficult Look at Sexual Desire

Trine Dyrholm is typically brilliant in Danish film ‘Queen of Hearts’ — playing an older woman embarking on an affair with her stepson.

Published

on

Queen of Hearts

Queen of Hearts starts with a rather banal scene. Anne (Trine Dyrholm) walks through the woods with her dog. Her children are just outside her large, glass-heavy house. She goes inside, where her husband, Peter (Magnus Krepper), says police have called and he has to go. She looks outside at some barren trees, dramatic strings play, and the title credits come on; it’s a seemingly innocuous moment curdled into something far more ominous. 

This opening salvo with something moody and dark hiding within the banality and reliability of a simple family scene (later revealed to be in the future) sums up the Official Danish Best International Film submission Queen of Hearts as a whole. This is a film of bad decisions, loneliness, and creaky moral boundaries, interrogating the mores of modern womanhood against the backdrop of supposed domestic perfection. 

Our protagonist, Anne, is a lawyer who works with children who have been abused. She knows how to talk to young victims of rape and neglect, balancing a firm sense of what’s right with the necessary language to give these children hope. But she has difficulties switching from work to home, unable to give her twin daughters the affection they deserve. One way for anyone to switch off and focus on life outside of work, of course, is to engage in some form of intimacy; yet, her hypocritical, workaholic doctor husband has little time to give her any attention in the bedroom. 

When Peter’s teenage son, Gustav (Gustav Lindh), turns up to stay for the summer, Anne is immediately attracted to his moodiness and sexual swagger. Their slow seduction scenes seem to all come from different movies: porno (he suddenly comes out of the shower in the towel), summer indie drama (a scene in a lake with splashing water and an ecstatic soundtrack), and eventually horror (a writhing, overly staged sex scene in the dark that is extremely shocking in its frankness). 

These shifts in tone reflect the film’s queasy study in shifting sympathies, making Queen of Hearts a modern morality play baked in typically Scandinavian seriousness. Is Anne simply engaging in a harmless affair, rediscovering her long-dormant sexuality? Or is the age difference simply too far? With echoes of both The Hunt (2012) and the women-focused sex-dramas of Lars von Trier, it is sure to provoke a mixture of praise for its brazen female sexual gaze, and eventually disgust for where this gaze finally takes us. 

Queen of Hearts

Most of us assume that we are good people, even as we are engaging in less than savoury activities. It may look bad to people on the outside, but we have our reasons. The ever-reliable Trine Dyrholm turns in another mesmerising performance here, balancing her own lack of sexual self-confidence against her outwardly authoritative presence as a lawyer. Even if we cannot agree with what she does, Dyrholm successfully conveys her character’s complexity, making her sympathetic throughout. But just as we can never judge ourselves objectively, we can never know the ultimate effect our actions may have on others, especially in a dynamic such as this, leading to some bitter results. 

Queen of Hearts asks the viewer to never make assumptions, to think outside of clichés, and to really dig deep into the true heart of the matter. Director May el-Toukhy knows she has strong actors and a strong screenplay here, employing minimal tricks to just let them get on and really chew into the material. While unlikely to make it into the final Oscar shortlist, Queen of Hearts deserves a lot of credit for its utter brazenness and steadfast commitment to its difficult premise.

Continue Reading

TIFF

‘Ford v Ferrari’ Drives Fast with Little Under the Hood

A classic Hollywood drama with fast cars and a stellar Christian Bale performance that feels great despite a lack of emotional substance.

Published

on

Ford v Ferrari

Many directors always struggle with producers and other businessmen to retain their vision. What might work most for that vision may not be what focus tests and audiences have proven to enjoy, so the film gets reworked and reworked until it becomes a box office hit, and potentially retains a director’s intent. Ford v Ferrari doesn’t necessarily feel like that — this is a James Mangold film in many regards — but by the end of its story of vision and skill versus marketing and business agendas, Mangold’s latest wrestles with placing trust in an individual against an entire body of suits.

When Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) is approached by Ford Motors to create a car fast enough to beat Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans (an annual racing event where drivers go all day and night around the same track), he is forced to fight tooth-and-nail to get the best driver for the job: Ken Miles (Christian Bale). Shelby’s fight is singular; he wants to win the Le Mans, and knows that Miles is the only one who can do it. Yet, Ford Motors is still a company with many eyes on them, and employing the hot-headed Miles as a driver could be disastrous. So begins a struggle for Shelby and Miles to have their desires met by a company looking at the bottom line. That struggle — one that underscores every decision made by the characters in the film — is what sits at the core of Ford v Ferrari, and keeps things interesting. Set that aside, however, and the film loses a lot of momentum.

Ford v Ferrari

Still, the racing will grip audiences throughout. The final Le Mans challenge runs for a decent portion of Ford v Ferrari and is engaging throughout, but there are several other races and practices where Mangold’s craftsmanship as a filmmaker shines bright. Miles sits in the driver’s seat of all of these moments, and Bale’s performance is never stronger than when his character has that need for speed. Miles is a passionate driver with pure intentions, and Bale gives him a lot of wit and heart in between huge swings of emotion. It’s a performance that stands tall but doesn’t distract, instead meshing extremely well with the action.

Meanwhile, the other performances are also solid. Matt Damon is very good in the role of Shelby, though his character is quite often reserved because he has to be. When you put him against Bale, however, it’s clear that Shelby pales to the race car driver’s fleshed-out character, as we follow the latter’s family, his rejections and successes, and his pure heart. In the backdrop is a wide array of supporting actors, including Caitriona Balfe as Mollie Miles, Josh Lucas as the thorn in Shelby’s side, Jon Bernthal playing a standard Jon Bernthal role, and Tracy Letts chewing up scenery whenever he can as Henry Ford II. Letts and Lucas in particular give great caricatured performances, planting Ford v Ferrari into a more standard Hollywood drama.

Ford v Ferrari

Largely that’s the problem: Ford v Ferrari is a technical achievement with some incredible craftsmanship and performances that just never feels as great at slow times as it does when it’s moving past 7000 RPMs. It has a need for speed, and the pacing shows that, but it also doesn’t really rise very high above what’s needed to please an audience. Mangold is great at deriving emotional substance out of a subject, but a lot of that in Ford v Ferrari is left on the shoulders of Bale’s performance. Instead, the film focuses heavily on the bureaucratic side of things, and how that hinders talented people from being who they are destined to be. While fun to watch, there isn’t much more that will have Ford v Ferrari lingering with audiences. Instead, this will be a movie that resonates with racing fans and those that struggle against restrictions, keeping general audience satisfied in their big Hollywood dramas for the time being.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on September 14 as part of our coverage of The Toronto International Film Festival.

Continue Reading

Trending