The Road to The Avengers

Well, with the upcoming Avengers movies being released I felt there was no better film or rather films, to write a blog post about then the previous Marvel films (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2) Ultimate Avengers: The Movie and the upcoming live action film The Avengers. To those who are not aware, or who have been living under a rock for the past oh, I’d say five years, The Avengers is coming to theaters May 4^th 2012. The film will be directed by Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel) and will star Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel Jackson, Jeremy Renner, and Mark Ruffalo. The Avengers are a team of superheroes who have to join forces in order to stop a threat so large no one hero can handle it.

From the get go, one should know that the animated movie is different from the soon to be released live action film in many ways, which you can come to realize without even having watched the live action film yet. For starters, the character known as Hawkeye A.K.A Clint Barton who is an agent of a world government agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D plays a major role in the live action film and he isn't in the animated movie at all. 

The list of team members in the animated movies includes the character of Nick Fury (leader of S.H.I.E.L.D.; a form of world government), Iron Man/Tony Stark (Billionaire/Industrialist/Scientist/Weapons Maker), Black Widow/Natasha Rominoff (Special Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.), The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Scientist infected with gamma radiation giving him untapped strength and rage), Thor (the actual god of thunder/A man who believes himself to be one), Captain America/Steve Rogers (Super Solider, super-human strength/agility), The Wasp/Janet Pym (Scientist/ Can shrink/Shoot Lasers), and finally, Giant-Man/Ant-Man/Hank Pym (Scientist/ Can grow and shrink in size/ Can Speak to bugs). Another difference in the live action film is that the characters Ant-Man/Giant-Man, and The Wasp won't be in it.

The major difference in the live action version will be that the animated movie had to explain how all of the Avengers got together, however Marvel Studios has done an excellent job of allowing that to take up no movie time in The Avengers. And this is one of the things that make Marvel Studios so amazing. The opening to the animated film is Captain America’s last mission during WW2 as he tries to stop a bomb headed for New York but soon meets his fate by plummeting into the cold waters of the Arctic to be frozen and revitalized when he is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D. about sixty years later. This won’t appear in the live action version because all of that took place during the events of the Captain America: The First Avenger movie.

What I find so astounding is that Marvel Studios has really created its full-fledged cinematic universe. Sure it can be argued that every movie is in some way its own universe, but Marvel has created a universe where characters can come in and out of separate movies and finally the characters all come together in one giant movie. All of the hype about The Avengers and even the creation of Marvel's cinematic universe could be traced back to 2008 with the release of Iron Man into theaters. SPOILER ALERT: In the film original Iron Man film starring Robert Downey Jr., there is a man who continues to try and get Tony Stark to sit down for an interview to discuss his Iron Man suit. The man says he works for the government in a group called the strategic homeland intervention enforcement and logistics division. At the end of the film the man reveals that the group has changed their name to S.H.I.E.L.D.

            To comic book fans, hearing this was mind blowing. That one line of dialogue was an “Easter Egg” revealing that there was a whole world that was outside of this characters plot line. Marvel’s crown jewel of Easter Eggs for Iron Man was a short scene that took place after the credits of the film. The scene entailed Tony Stark walking into his house (assumed after the final scene of the film) and a man is there in the dark. He says, “You think you’re the only superhero in the world? Mr. Stark, you’ve become part of a bigger universe, you just don’t know it yet.” Then Samuel Jackson steps into the shot saying that he is Nick Fury, Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (who the character in the comics is actually facially based off of) and then he says to Stark, “I’m here to talk to you about the Avenger Initiative.”

            Forget what I said before, when comic book fans heard this line they literally jumped out of their seats at the theaters screaming from sheer excitement and joy. This meant that not only were more superhero movies going to be made but that eventually Marvel was planning on creating a movie that would take superheroes and put them on a team. And that’s exactly what Marvel did. They made Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and most recently Captain America: The First Avenger. In each one of those films there was a scene after the credits that tied in the other films. After Iron Man 2 they showed the same agent from the first Iron Man go and find Thor’s Hammer, the end of The Incredible Hulk had Tony Stark in it, and both Captain America and Thor had scenes that tied in plot that would all build up to The Avengers.

           Marvel has actually created a universe and a movie where characters from 5 other movies are going to come together. That is really something that has never been done before in movie history. There have been sequels and prequels but they usually follow one fluid story where as these films stand completely separate from The Avengers aside from the one prequel esque scene. They are taking characters from a bunch of different movies and bringing them together for The Avengers, and after the characters go back to their own storyline with Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2 all coming out within the next two years.

I find it so cool that Marvel has not only been able to do this, but do it in a way that so that they don’t need to spend any time in The Avengers discussing how the team got together. All of the scenes at the end of the credits of the previous films for the most part tell how these characters will come together. I myself cannot wait for this movie and I hope to see this studio do some more groundbreaking work in cinema. 

What a Great Goon

                     In the world of hockey, there is something that’s known as a “goon.” A goon is what’s also known as an Enforcer, an unofficial job in Hockey. The job of the Enforcer is to respond to violent plays from the opposing team. The response is usually expected to be either a big check (basically throwing your body into another players body) or a fight will break out. This is in many ways the plot line of the new hard hitting (pun intended) comedy, Goon. Michael Dowse, who previously directed the 2011 film Take Me Home Tonight, directs the film. The movie is based off of the novel “Goon: The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey,” written by Adam Frattasio and Doug Smith. The film stars comedic actor Sean William Scott, along with Liev Schreiber, and Jay Baruchel.

            The film immediately draws you in as the first thirty seconds start with small humorous hockey banter, a fist fight and blood splatter slowly dripping onto the ice floor as the title of the film, “GOON” appears. Then a tooth slowly falls and the words, “I think I nailed him,” can be heard. This, for the most part, informs the audience of the movies theme and some of the humor that is apparent throughout. Although with this film it’s completely okay, because right off the bat you know this movie is aiming for laughs and entertainment value, not necessarily Oscar nominations. This is without a doubt a film that was made to watch with a couple of buddies and to enjoy. This is not a film that was made with an artistic style and is aiming to be a good film. It really is solely aiming to be a good comedy. However, I will say that this film does have it’s fair share of interesting camera angles though, such as during the main characters first big game when the camera turns into the puck and in a point of view type shot, your are being passed from player to player giving the audience the feeling the intensity and frenzy of what it might be like on the ice. 

            Sean William Scott plays the character of Doug Glatt, a bouncer quickly turned hockey player. The film is partially based off of the life story of old Hockey player Doug Smith who played from 79’ until 1992 when he retired. Smith was, similarly to the character in the film not great at Hockey but really good at fighting. What makes Smith stand out among other hockey players is that he really wasn’t that good at Hockey. The film takes place in the current time and strays from the actual history of Smith such as adding in a love interest and a rivalry to make it more of a plotline. Personally, I didn’t mind that these clichés were in the film and I enjoyed that this character is different from the normal one Sean William Scott tends to play.

The character is not really vulgar at all, which is a switch up, and somewhat refreshing. I noticed that through out the film Scott made a lot of character choices that improved on the movie. For example through out the film, Scott does not tend to move around a lot. He does move, but he usually keeps his body somewhat tight and restrained. He seems like he is in a state of calm, even when he is yelling at his parent, he does so in a somewhat whispering tone. The only exception to this is when Glatt is fighting or goes out onto the ice to play hockey and fight. It almost seems as the character/actor was storing up their energy for these moments of fighting.

            Sean William Scott was definitely the right choice for a film like this. He has his funny moments throughout and I think it has a lot to do with the actor’s choices through out the film. One such moment is Glatt’s conversation with his new found semi-rival Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber). The Mustached rival tells him he’s gonna beat his ass and then pretty much stands up and leaves the restaurant, Glatt (sitting there alone) reaches across the table and eats his toast. 

           The side characters in the film add to the comedic humor of situations such as his best friend played by Jay Baruchel who has been in films such as Knocked Up, She’s Out Of My League, and Sorcerers Apprentice. A great scene involving Jay’s character Ryan is when Glatt first goes out onto the ice for his first time ever to try out for the hockey team. He walks out onto the ice with figure skates on instead of hockey skates and the team starts to laugh. Ryan, who is filming all of it from the stands, yells, “Hey, what’s a matta, you ‘ve never seen figya skates before? He got em’ from his gay brother!”

            The film has a very small range of emotion through out the film from funny upbeat comedy to a semi-dramatic moment. The film has a good plotline and even though you can pretty much guess what the film is going to be about, from pretty much the beginning, it honestly takes nothing away from the entertainment value. This film was made to be enjoyed. The biggest flaw that I see in the movie is that there are parts in the story that are left completely open and are just not talked about such as his parents no longer believing in him.

            Overall, this was a good quality movie and I would definitely watch it again. There is a large entertainment value to this movie, and it’s simply fun to watch. The plot line isn’t the greatest, however the different choices made by the main actor make the film insanely better and very enjoyable. I would recommend this to anyone who is a fan of Hockey or Sean William Scott. 

1962 comes to 2012

Every year at Rider University there is a film symposium that gives students and faculty a chance to learn about film in an engaging and fascinating way outside of the classroom. Although my favorite Symposium was on horror films, however I thoroughly enjoyed this year’s film symposium as well. The theme this year being 1962. As 2012 marks the 50^th anniversary of The School of Liberal Arts.

What is so fantastic about the year of 1962 was that there was a huge number of great films released that year, including To Kill A Mocking Bird, Dr. No, Birdman of Alcatraz, Lawrence of Arabia, and Advise and Consent. Not only did attendees get to watch classic films from that year, but they also got to see a Rider Alumni who is a well-known film critic. Dr. Gerald Peary, who graduated Rider in 1964, went on to critique film for over 30 years, taught classes on film, and even made his own movie about criticism. Peary showed his feature film titled, Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism. The film takes an in-depth look into the world of film criticism and shows the audience a side they’ve never seen before.

Dr. Gerald Peary

In my opinion, Dr. Peary’s film was excellent and I found the film to be very informative as well. Honestly, when I first had heard about his film my immediate reaction was “oh boy an entire film about film critics.” However, upon watching his film I was extremely surprised. I was being both entertained and informed. Peary’s film gave a history and commentary on all of film criticism. Before viewing the film I had an idea of what film critics were like in my mind. I love mostly all movies and had viewed film critics as the people who didn’t normally like what I did.

Watching this film made me completely change my perspective on film critics as a whole. An excellent example of this was when Dr. Peary was asked what drew him towards the career of film criticism. He responded, “I’m a film critic for my love of film. I want other people to see the same films that I saw and love.” The film really showed how much more there is to this profession.

After seeing all of the critics who spoke in the film I realized that critics, like me, have a true love for film. They don’t critique films because they want to bash them or they hate all new movies, but their critiques are in depth responses to a film. The critics do this because they want to show people what to look for in a movie and they expand on the film. Peary has said, “What a critic does is contextualize the movie in terms of history, politics, a filmmaker’s career, and genre.” He went on to mention that, “A film critic sees the movie as just a starting point for a more general discussion and that’s why I hope someone will go see a movie, because the audience will realize that the movie is more than just a movie.” 

Hearing things like this and the commentary from the different film critics really hit me. It made me realize how much more there is to film criticism. The critics don’t want to solely judge the film they want to expand on it and make readers realize how much is put into a film. This feature film not only expanded my mind as to what a critic is, but it also made me realize something about myself.

Dare I say it?... Okay, okay I’ll confess. I Zach Davis would actually like to be a film critic at some point in my life. I know they say that anyone can be a critic, but I would like to work for a paper or some website. Honestly, I can’t think of a better job then seeing and discussing films all day. I’ve always thought if you love what you do you never have to work a day in your life. I don’t know what the future does hold in store for me, but I do know that my future will involve film. 

The Artistic style of The Artist

In 2011 a film was released that showed audiences an older side to Hollywood. The movie was later nominated for a total of six Golden Globes, twelve BAFTA’s (British Academy of Film and Television Arts), and ten Academy Awards. That film, titled The Artist, directed by Michel Hazanavicius, starring French actors Jean Dujardin as the lead George Valentin, Berenice Bejo as the lovely Peppy Miller, and John Goodman as the studio boss Al Zimmer. The Artist takes place in Hollywood in 1927, “George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a silent movie superstar. The advent of the talkies will sound the death knell for his career and see him fall into oblivion. For young extra Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), it seems the sky is the limit - major movie stardom awaits. The Artist tells the story of their interlinked destinies” [(C) Weinstein]. Overall, The Artist is considered one of the best films to come in a long time. The reason being that the film is so different then what has come out of Hollywood in recent years and what makes this film unlike others is that the acting style is so different from the standard Hollywood acting style and it shows a historical period of the film industry.

For starters The Artist (partially playing on the film being set in the late 20’s, and early 30’s) is a black and white, silent film. Already that puts this film in a different category from most movies coming out today. So, in relation to that, the acting is in a different category as well. The film has no diegetic sound and is almost completely image-driven; so the actors had to, no pun intended, act accordingly.  In a silent film the acting style needs to be more unique and stylized/theatrical. However, there are many people in America and the world who have never seen a silent film before and most modern day film has invisible acting, which looks completely natural. So, what is so great about The Artist is that the film incorporates both old and new styles to acting.

            The characters in the film are actors, and the film takes place in the 1920s when silent films were extremely popular. The audience gets to see a historical period of the film industry and things that were actually happening in real life. There were many actors and actresses who were thrown out of work once “talkies” started to become the major hits. We see the actors during their silent films and we see how they start acting in films with talking.

The audience, in respect, then watches the characters go from a very theatrical and stylized way of acting, which we see in the clips of their movies, to a semi-modern style of acting when they are the characters in their every day lives. I am using the term semi-modern because the actors had to, at least in my opinion, do more acting then is required in most modern films.

            Yes The Artist is a silent film, but what made the actors do so much more than most is the movies lack of inter-titles. A lot of full-length silent films had inter-titles through out conversations between two characters. However, The Artist did not seem to do that. In fact there were full conversations that happened in the film where only one inter-title came up. This meant that in order for the audience to understand what was going on, they had to highly rely on the actors’ expressions and the music. Making the audience think for themselves and creates a sort of connection to the characters.

            Through out this film all of the actors gave tremendous performances and as a whole the film was directed beautifully. I loved how the film represents a historical era in the film industry. It shows the struggle of certain actors when the times and technology started to change. Anything that brings a classical sense to modern day audiences is usually pretty awesome in my book and trust me when I say; overall, The Artist is a fantastic film. It is clever, different, and in many ways a refreshing change from the modern Hollywood films we see everyday. The acting style is unique because of its mixture of old and new styles when it comes to acting and the historical content makes the film a feel fresh and different then most films. Even if to just re-watch the expressions the actors have through out, this film is definitively something to see again.