Having seen the film on release about two and a half weeks ago, it doesn't still sit in my mind as freshly as it did on the few days after I first saw it. It was undoubtedly a mistake on my part to not write this immediately after viewing, but I think that the general picture has remained quite clear: Avengers: Age of Ultron is a bombastic, unabashedly huge movie, with a not-so-humble $250 million budget that somehow manages to one-up the first, and action that at points is so relentless you can feel your brain dulling as your eyes glaze at the never ending onslaught of CGI. I don't have a problem with action-oriented movies; as I stated, I enjoyed the first Avengers. In the sequel, however, action-oriented is an understatement. It's action-centric in the most literal sense, with the majority of plot development, minus exposition, revolving around the action presented on screen.
Take, for example, the opening scene. Immediately, the Avengers are introduced, already in a climactic battle scene that seems fitting for the middle or end of the movie. There is absolutely no context initially, so the viewer has no reason to even pay attention except to view the eye candy. When any semblance of context does come into play, it's thrown away very quickly, as the viewer learns that this initial scene is a cleverly disguised transition into the next action set piece, and then the next, and so on. Honestly, though, many action films have come to implement this form of plot progression, and have been moderately successful with it. So then where does Avengers 2 fail where it's predecessor succeeded?The first Avengers film triumphed in developing a dysfunctional group that somehow, against all logic or reason, was able to defy the generic evil that was threatening them and the planet they were supposedly protecting. It wasn't a very serious film; the earth was in peril, sure, but isn't it always? The fact that the first film realized this is what made it so wildly popular; it's simply fun. The second film, on the other hand, is not, or at least not even close to the same degree as the first film was. It doesn't know what it wants to be: it throws jokes around every corner at the same time a literal genocide is occurring; it has characters that seem like they could never go anywhere without treating each other like oddball siblings, until, of course, they hate each other because they faced a little adversity. At one point the group gets so whiny and self-pitying that they need an actual parent figure to give them a pep talk. These are the superheroes we're supposed to cheer on? From the way the script treats them, it seems they belong in a day care center. Avengers 2, at least from the media storm it received before release, seemed like it was going to be a darker and more brooding Avengers, but in fact it's the same Avengers in a much more muddled framework, spending time tearing apart the heroes' team and killing thousands of people while still trying to remain somewhat humorous. It doesn't know when it wants to be serious, and it doesn't know when it wants to be simply entertaining. So through a large portion of the film, it ends up being neither.
Now, I would like to make something clear: I do not dislike character development. A movie with good character development is likely to have a good sense of progression in general, and along with that, a tight script to move these well-written characters through their paces. It is one of the most integral aspects of what may be defined as a "well written movie" within the appropriate contexts. Age of Ultron is attempting to be the more character-focused of the two films; unfortunately, any development that does occur is when characters are being obnoxiously self-defeating, even when it may not be appropriate at all. Isn't Tony Stark supposed to deal with his problems by hiding them under his self-confident personality, only for them to occasionally peer out and cause an issue? His character is interesting because it's rather subtle in comparison with some of the other Avengers, but in this film it's as if he's having a full out existential crisis. I don't mind seeing the group being torn apart by a clever villain who knows how to pull the strings, but when the fun-loving, dysfunctional group humor is constantly mixed with characters acting way out of tune by complaining about how horrible everything really is, I can't help but be annoyed.
But I digress; I suppose I'm ignoring a key question here: how does Ultron, that enigmatic, sentient, titular AI created by Tony Stark, fare as a supervillain, especially in comparison with these seemingly confused heroes? Well enough, I suppose, but there's nothing distinguishing him from other generic supervillains. James Spader, who was motion captured for the entire role, delivers an excellent performance that blends significant menace with an arrogant slyness. In fact, he plays the self-absorbed quips role better than Tony Stark does, who, to be honest, spends most of the time moping like the rest of the Avengers, perpetually stuck in his Iron Man 3 role. However, this is not a bad thing: a good villain is typically either the equivalent or the better of the hero, whether it be in brute strength or wit. Ultron, fortunately, has both over the heroes. He is a significant, and literally omnipresent, threat. But beyond a sizeable wit, he has nothing so profoundly interesting about him to pique the interests of those already jaded to superhero films; he suffices, but he does not exceed. Considering the title bears his name, I can't help but feel disappointed.And really, that's the whole name of the game: disappointing. I don't think the Avengers is a stunning film in its own right; in fact, it's far from it. But it undoubtedly succeeded in achieving its goal of being an entertaining superhero film. Avengers: Age of Ultron, in striving for more in terms of character development and scale, while also striving for less in terms of actual plot, fails to meet this benchmark that its predecessor set. The action looks gorgeous, but by the time the movie brings the destruction scale to the size of an entire continent, the awe-inspiring effect has already been thinned to a wire, and it becomes tedious. All the while, occasionally entertaining drama may hold over viewers for a bit of time, until it starts contrasting too heavily with everything else the film has decided to throw in. I'll be honest, though, in saying that this project was clearly doubly as ambitious as the first film was, which is absolutely no small feat. Writer director Joss Whedon just may have stumbled upon his ambition with Age of Ultron. Or of course, he may not have stumbled at all; this movie may have split fans considerably more than the first film managed to, but I still hold the unpopular opinion. And box office return wise... well, it certainly hasn't been a stumble. Regardless, I think I'll stick to my opinion.
