Avengers: Infinity War review: Fun, bold and manages to (mostly) live up to the hype.

Avengers: Infinity War. This is what it’s been building up to ever since Thanos swivelled around in his chair in a post-credits scene. It was a simpler time back then. We only had one Avengers team and it consisted of only six heroes: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye. It’s been six years since then; six years of build up, of new superheroes, of new villains, of Thanos bidding his time. Now, after all that time, Thanos is seeking out the Infinity Stones and it’s up to Earth’s Mightiest Heroes to stop him in one single, epic outing.

And that’s really what Avenger: Infinity War is. If you remember as a kid, you would watch cartoons and programmes and occasionally they would have a ‘feature length episode’. Avengers: Infinity War feels like a feature length version pf Marvel’s already impressive catalogue of superhero movies. Or to put it in comic book terms, it’s the crossover event, where they pull all the characters into one large scale conflict. With comics though it was often a way to sell more comics by forcing the reader to purchase a series they didn’t usually buy. Disney/Marvel did the same thing with their movies, encouraging people who otherwise wouldn’t have cared about characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange to see their movies or risk not knowing what was going on in Captain America: Civil War or Thor: Ragnarok. Basically, Infinity War is your reward for having sat through every Marvel film up to this point.

With that much hype weighing upon the film it would have been very easy for it to crumble under the sheer pressure of having to live up to the immense expectations. What’s more impressive is that Infinity War kinda does live up to its hype. It’s by no means a perfect movie and decades from now no one is going to be debating that Infinity War is better than Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind, but for what it is and what it’s trying to live up to, Infinity War is pretty damn entertaining. There’s lots of action, some emotional beats and there’s a fair bit of witty banter from the heroes as we’ve come to expect from Marvel films.

Guy can control reality and time…fights him with guns and spears.

In fact, one of the main points that this film gets right is the balance between action and comedy. Some of the most recent films, such as Guardians of the Galaxy 2 or Thor: Ragnarok tried to overlap the action and comedy so much that the humour sometimes undercut the tension. Sure, it was funny but it sometimes left the films feeling deflated, robbing them of any emotional poignancy. Infinity War managed to straddle the line quite well, though in part that may be due to the length of the film. At two hours, forty minutes, Infinity War is the longest Marvel film to date, and that allows the Russos to really separate the comedy and the action and allow each to have its place.

Thanos was also fairly compelling as a villain. As the Mad Titan, it fit with the character that his motivations and plan should be completely insane. He wants to wipe half of the universe from existence so that the rest can live better lives. Even if he’s right, which there’s no evidence of, he’s willing to commit genocide and he spares no thought or compassion for the people he’s erasing or the hurt it bring upon those left behind. It’s quite interesting to watch characters try and dissuade him, only for Thanos to stubbornly hold to his plan. It’s rare to see a villain with such conviction and force of will, whose end goal isn’t god-worship or total dominion.

The biggest flaw of Infinity War is, as you might expect, the number of characters. While the film handles the cast size well, and everyone has a job some of those jobs are little more than ‘punch that monster’. Which is understandable, because when you have this many superheroes in one spot, you’re never going to be able to give everyone their moment or showcase everyone’s abilities. But it also means that there’s a lot going on and on a lot of different planets across the universe from each other. It can get overwhelming and distracting at times.

That moment when you have an idea to end world hunger but no one wants to commit genocide.

Regarding the ending, it is bold. Even though some, or all, of it may get rewritten in Avengers 4, it’s still a fairly gut wrenching conclusion. And I think it’s also necessary to think of how this will be perceived by casual viewers. A typical audience may not spend their days immersed in the rumours and background stories of Marvel Studios. They may only know what film is coming next by the trailers that show in the cinema. Not everyone has Marvel’s schedule committed to memory. So when a film ends as drastically as Infinity War did, well, they may just believe that it is permanent.

Marvel is it’s own worst enemy in this regard. The fact that we have schedules and do know of upcoming releases mean that we can tell there are likely to be some shenanigans in Avengers 4. And maybe that might render some of the emotional pull of Infinity War moot, but I think that Infinity War deserves to be judged based on its own merits and flaws, at least for now. For example, Captain America: Winder Soldier wasn’t good because it followed on from Avengers or because it led into Captain America: Civil War. It was good because it was interesting, entertaining and had emotional, personal stakes for Steve Rogers that got audiences invested. Maybe Avengers 4 will wind up making Infinity War look dumb but for now, it should be appreciated for what it is: fun.

If you though Avengers: Infinity War wasn’t fun, hit me up in the comments. Or you can catch me through social media. They’re all there at the side. Otherwise, feel free to peruse previous posts to PreposterousProse, such as the Black Panter review or Thor: Ragnarok review. Finally, if fiction is more your forte, you can read my second novel, Carrion Youth, for free, over at swoonreads.com.

Monsters

Avengers: Age of Ultron is a great movie. It is not a great movie because there are a bunch of cool action scenes, or because of the funny quips and one-liners, nor is it because of how faithful it is the comics. No, The Avengers second cinematic outing is great because it draws upon the individual installments. I don’t mean that in the sense that HYDRA were exposed in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron opens with the team fighting HYDRA. Age of Ultron is great because the characters are affected by what has come before.

This is most notably true with Tony Stark. In Iron Man 3, Stark was suffering from post-traumatic stress due to the battle of New York shown in the first Avengers film. Stark had become so concerned about another attack that he’d built forty two Iron Man suits. When past demons came back to haunt him, Stark deployed all of the suits, a remote controlled army. Though he initiated the clean slate protocol at the end of that film, it’s clear from Avengers:Age of Ultron that he’s far from cured of his PTSD. Iron Man has rebuilt his army, made up of Iron Man drones, naming it Iron Legion and he’s working on an AI to protect the Earth from outside threat.

Captain America and Thor get similar treatment. Cap is still the old fish out of water, reminiscing about Agent Carter and the life he left behind in Captain America: The First Avenger when mind jacked by Elizabeth Olsen’s Wanda Maximoff. When also tricked, Thor receives a vision of a tainted Asgard, possibly explained by Loki’s rule and to be further explored in Thor: Ragnarok. Even in terms of Wanda and Pietro Maximoff, their backstory involves being orphaned by bombs distributed by Stark Industries. And arms dealing was a lucrative business for Stark not so long ago.

Age of Ultron does avenge Hawkeye’s lack of screen time from the first film.

It’s not a retreading of past stories though. Some of the characters get completely new developments, namely Clint Barton. Hawkeye spent most of the first film unappreciated due to his brainwashing and generally just having less to do in the battle of New York. That’s been more than rectified here in Age of Ultron where we get to see a lot more of what Barton does when he’s not an Avenger. It’s a quieter moment in the film but it’s great character growth and brings a rather ‘meh’ character to life.

The main thrust of the story is that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner attempt to create an A.I. to protect Earth using information and coding extracted from Loki’s sceptre. This A.I. is called Ultron and, in true science fiction fashion, immediately assesses that the best way to save humanity is to wipe it out. He enlists the Maximoff twins to his cause but doesn’t divulge his end game. Turns out he’s quite obsessed with comets, desiring to lift a land mass out of the Earth and drop it to create an extinction level seismic blast.

Ultron does not pose much of a threat to The Avengers. They square off several times before the final battle and each time the Avengers succeed in destroying him. The problem is that he escapes using the internet, allowing him to move into a new body and continue his plans. Part of those plans are to create a better body, a more synthetic model, utilising new skin constructing technology and the mind gem. But even those plans are headed off by Tony Stark and Thor. It’s nice to see the heros being as proactive as the villain for once. The only real exception is Steve Rogers who warns that ‘everytime someone tries to win a war before it starts innocent people die’. Is that perhaps a dispute that could lead to a civil war?

Avengers: Age of Ultron goes dark but with more colour.

It’s those little character moments that make the film, whether it’s building on what has come before or feeding into the next installments. But it’s also these moments that create a darker atmosphere in the Marvel universe than fans might be use to. Iron Man 3 and Thor: Dark World (ironically) were lighter and more jokey than Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron. The main theme this time around is that our heros are monsters, capable of hurting the world as much as they are of saving it. Isn’t that the same theme DC were going for in their Batman V. Superman trailer? Age of Ultron does it without the gritty, dark palette and gruff garbled voices. It does so with the deep, alluring tones of one James Spader.

Is it better than the first film? That’s tough to say. The Avengers was the first of its kind. No film before it had created a shared universe and built towards an ensemble film. It was fun without being overly complex, which it needed to be in order to appeal to casual fans and not just the fanatics who watched every film and obsessed over every scene. But it did have it’s flaws, as does Age of Ultron. One thing that bothered me a lot was the CGI which was very noticeable at times. I don’t think Age of Ultron is much more CGI heavy than the first outing but it didn’t seem to blend quite right. But that’s only a slight grievance.

Even with it’s failings and comparisons to the first, Avengers: Age of Ultron is still a great film in its own right. Far too often, sequels will attempt to draw fans in with bigger and bolder stories at the expense of the characters who become stereotypes and cliches drawn with broad strokes. Not so with Age of Ultron, which moves from alien invasion to robotic uprising but remains underpinned by character development and growth throughout. Now, on to Ant-Man and phase three.

Freedom

Round Two of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been one of experimentation and change. The recurrent theme of what has become known as ‘phase two’ of the Avengers Initiative is genre shifting; a placing of the characters into situations more outside of their comfort zone. Iron Man 1 and 2 were fairly straight forward action dramas with some comedy, whilst Iron Man 3 was silly and comic in its portrayal of Iron Man and his enemies. Thor was a light hearted fish out of water romp with nothing too challenging in its plot, whereas Thor: The Dark World chose to show a rather conflicted god of thunder dealing with issues much more grounded in magic and myth. Captain America: The First Avenger was a historical war drama very much committed to telling a back story but Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a political action film about betrayal and the compromising of one’s ideals.

While it would be nice to say that this has led to a deepening of character and story, that hasn’t always been the case. Iron Man 2 showed that having a battery for a heart had consequences and that Tony Stark, the flawed being that he wasn’t, didn’t necessarily deal with it the right way. Iron Man 3 instead gave Stark post traumatic stress which fails to have any lasting impact other than ‘I built a lot of Iron Man suits’. The Dark World, unwilling to completely shed the comedy of Thor, awkwardly interrupts action scenes with witty remarks, such as Darcy mispronouncing Mjolnor as it flies past. Thankfully, Captain America: The Winter Soldier manages to pull this off almost flawlessly, delving into the character motivations and circumstances of Nick Fury and Natasha Romanoff as well as the titular character.

Captain America was always going to be a hard sell in the modern world. The values of freedom and patriotism in America are heavily criticised these days with many seeing freedom being America’s own brand which it forces upon people. Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans, is aware of this and it unsettles him. How S.H.I.E.L.D. operates makes him uncomfortable. The fact that his own director and partner lie to him make him question what he fought for in the first film. This is good writing. The actions of the first film define the character and have consequences. The Winter Soldier doesn’t just reference The First Avenger, it is informed by it and grows out of it.

Yay, non-uniform day!

In the end, Captain America is pitted against S.H.I.E.L.D. itself, drawing battle lines and forcing characters to take sides. One such character is Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow. This is the first film where I have actually enjoyed the Black Widow. Yes, she kicked ass in Iron Man 2 and she was cool in The Avengers but there wasn’t much depth to her performances in those films. In both of those movies she was little more than a hot girl in a tight body suit spinning around as she kicked and shot people. Nice to look at but without substance. I don’t blame those movies. Iron Man 2 was her introduction and The Avengers had no time for this kind of thing.

Black Widow and Captain America are two sides of the same coin. Romanoff is willing to do anything that is asked of her simply because she believes herself to be on the side of good. She gets shaken to the core and begins to rethink her personal beliefs when S.H.I.E.L.D.’s true motivations are revealed. Rather than taking orders, she becomes willing to do what is right for what she knows is good, not what someone tells her is good. Black Widow needed this movie, probably more than even Captain America did. After this film, A Black Widow stand alone project is believable.

Not to be outdone, Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury undergoes his own character development. Even more so than Black Widow, Fury has not only done some questionable things but as also ordered others to do some dubious tasks, all in the name of freedom. He accepts the sentiment of wielding fear as a weapon to maintain peace. However, there are events transpiring at S.H.I.E.L.D. of which even he has no knowledge of. Of course, this being Nick Fury, he quickly forms a gambit of his own but he still must confront the fact that this world where freedom and integrity are so readily exchanged for peace and happiness is one which he helped to create. Nicky Fury has been very much a side line player for the Marvel Cinematic Universe so it is nice to see him move to the fore front for once. And as ever, Samuel L. Jackson oozes charisma.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a black guy with military grade personal flight equipment.

As if those three weren’t enough, Cobie Smulders makes a return as Agent Maria Hill, Revenge star Emily VanCamp stars as Sharon Carter and Antony Mackie makes his debut as Sam Wilson, aka Falcon. Wilson’s work here really was superb, working in line with Chris Evans but never stealing the spot light. He was a gentle source of comedy, one that never broke the tension. Falcon joining The Avengers full time would be great as I would really like to see more of this character. A reappearance by the Winter Soldier himself wouldn’t go amiss either.

The Winter Soldier almost gets away with a perfect run but there are a few cracks. The ensemble cast feels like it is there to cover up Evan’s inadequacies as a leading actor. He is decent but he doesn’t command the screen in the same way Hemsworth or Downey do. The character almost feels too good as well. Sure he is forced to face a world far removed from the ideals he knew but he never needs to compromise and is basically proven right in every argument. It would be nice if he failed at something. Structurally, the build up could have been lessened to devote more time to the final battle which suffers because it tries to divide the time it does have between five separate locations.

On the whole, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a great film and a solid inclusion into the second phase build up to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. It actually got me excited for the next Avengers film in a way that I wasn’t before. Personally, I enjoyed Thor: The Dark World slightly more but that is largely down to personal preference. For anyone, whether a Marvel fanatic or a casual viewer, looking for a fun and interesting film I would certainly suggest giving Captain America: The Winter Soldier a look.

Injustice

DC’s upcoming Justice League film won’t be able to match Marvel’s epic continuity driven movie, The Avengers. I may be a little biased as I’ve always enjoyed the product produced and created by Marvel more than DC’s output but regardless of my own personal preference, I enjoy good films, television shows and comics regardless of who creates them. I’ll happily admit that The Dark Knight is a better film than Iron Man or Captain America. However, DC’s very slapdash approach to a Justice League film leaves little doubt that it is just a shameless attempt to cash in on Marvel’s success.

While it is true that DC and Warner Brother’s have been trying to get a Justice League film off the ground since about 2007, it was rarely connected or considered to be in canon with DC’s other films. For instance, in October of that year, Armie Hammer had been cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman in the Justice League despite Christian Bale having portrayed the character in Batman Begins only two years earlier and would go on to reprise the role a year later. There’s nothing wrong with that route and I’m sure Armie Hammer would have been an excellent Batman but it clearly shows that DC was working on the projects as separate franchises.

This could be your live action Justice League but who will play them?

That original Justice League film was put on hiatus until summer of the following year when the project was scraped and DC announced a plan similar to how Marvel built up to The Avengers. Four films would be released accumulating in a Justice League film. Of those four, only Green Lantern, The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel made it to or will make it to public consumption. We can only guess what the fourth film might have been but The Flash or Wonder Woman were most likely. However, I’ve seen both Green Lantern and The Dark Knight Rises and neither film alludes to any grander scheme. In Iron Man, Nick Fury appears and presents Tony Stark with plans for the Avenger’s Initiative. In Iron Man 2, he pulls out Captain America’s shield from a box of stuff his dad kept. The Tesseract from Thor was later (or before, chronologically) used in Captain America: The First Avenger to power Nazi weapons. Neither Green Lantern nor The Dark Knight Rises suggests that the two worlds are connected or that there is some great evil coming that they might need to join against. In fact, The Dark Knight Rises ends with the retirement of Bruce Wayne as Batman.

Given the failure of Green Lantern, it’ll be a surprise if Ryan Reynolds returns. That’s not Reynolds fault really since he made the best with what he was given and it won’t necessarily adversely affect Justice League. Edward Norton originally portrayed The Hulk in The Incredible Hulk but Marvel ultimately decided not to bring him back for The Avengers. And if the Justice League film had really been planned ahead, I wouldn’t have a problem with a few casting changes but it is painfully obvious a Justice League movie is being thrown together at this point. That plan from 2008 was scraped too, later in the year, and in 2010 a representative for DC Entertainment said there were no plans to connect future film projects. It wasn’t until after The Avengers was released and was successful in theatres that DC announced that a Justice League film would released in 2015, despite having no director and no script.

Conversely, planning and development for The Avengers begin way back in 2005. Just let that sink in for a moment. DC are attempting to rival a film that was the fruition of seven years work and their plan is to take their current solo products and shove them together and release the result in two years. How can anyone at DC think that is a good idea? Some fans have been quietened by the idea that Christopher Nolan will oversee all DC projects and that Christian Bale will return if Nolan returns. DC hasn’t commented on these rumours but personally it doesn’t seem like a good idea for Bale or Nolan to return. Christian Bale returning makes zero sense following the conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises. I’m not saying it has to be Joseph Gordon-Levitt but at least that would be logically in keeping with the final Batman film.

Jonathan Kent decides personal privacy more valuable than human lives.

Another problem exists in the yet unreleased Man of Steel Superman film by Zack Synder. To play captain obvious for a moment, Superman isn’t Batman. You can’t approach the two characters in the same way. Batman is a darker character and therefore conforms to a code to distinguish him from the monsters and villains that he faces. Superman needs no such code. He is just naturally idealistic and hopeful, partly due to the positive influence instilled in him by his parents Martha and Jonathan Kent. The ultra-realism style may have worked for Batman but nihilism does not fit with Superman. Has anyone actually seen the trailer? Specifically, I’m referring to the point where a young Clark Kent questions his father on having saved a school bus of children from drowning. He asks Jonathan ‘was I meant to just let them die’ and his father replies ‘maybe’. Maybe? If you’re going to throw out the Kent’s good natured upbringing, you may as well have him raised by Darkseid, Lionel Luthor or the Waynes.

This standardised style that DC seem determined to incorporate into their films since Nolan’s success with Batman isn’t going to do them any favours. Iron Man, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger are good films because they are different and when the characters come together in The Avengers it works because they are distinct. The Iron Man films are wittier and focus on the benefits and abuse of technology, whereas Thor used more physical humour and it was more classically dramatic. A lot of work went into creating the many pieces that made Avengers and for DC to think that they can simply repeat what has done them well in the past and hope to compete is just ridiculous. Perhaps if they took their time and released a Justice League film in 2020, it might be as good but as it stands, even objectively speaking, DC can’t hope to beat Marvel’s The Avengers.

Avengers

So, by now, everyone will have, or should have, seen the Avengers. Even if you’re not invested in the characters or the comic book adaptation the film still represents a huge undertaking as far as cinema and movies in general are concerned. Never before has a film series attempted to replicate the same continuity usually found in comics and relied upon the viewer’s attention.  Watching The Avengers without having seen Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor or Captain America could be done but certain details, such as the bad blood between Thor and Loki or the various powers of the Tesseract, would be missing. For The Avengers to have the most impact and greatest potency, it requires the viewer to have seen all the previous films in the series.

Just to set the record straight first of all, I did enjoy the film. I thought Joss Whedon did what he does best with the group dynamic and he probably was the best director for the job due to his experience with ensemble casts on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. The cast all meshed well, which was nice to see, considering that they were all coming off their own individual films where they were unequivocally in the main roles and they now have to share that role with five other actors. I’m not trying to suggest that any of the actors had to deflate their egos but I’m sure it’s difficult to go from lead to ensemble while still acting as the same character. Writing and production was great too. The story made sense and there was nothing too difficult to grasp. The threat gradually intensified and the final battle completely delivered.

Perhaps the sequel will avenge his lack of screen time.

But that’s not to say that the film didn’t have its failings. None of them were ‘significant and dispiriting’ as one New York critic put it, but they existed all the same. What were they? Well, firstly, Hawkeye was rather under represented and under developed as a character, both within the team and outside of it. He got a lot less screen time than the other Avengers and this is partly for good reason. Since he was corrupted by Loki, showing too much of Hawkeye’s activities would have ruined much of the mid-film action but, nonetheless, this was the first time we got to be properly introduced to Hawkeye. Sure, we had the cameo appearance from a scene in Thor but that was nothing compared to the amount of character building that Black Widow had already received in Iron Man 2. Honestly, it felt like Whedon had no use for him in the majority of the film so he made him a dragon to the bad guy. This is a common trait in Whedon’s ensembles, or so I’ve found. In Buffy, Xander regularly had little or nothing to do except make sarcastic quips and Rupert Giles seemed to fall into similar territory around in seasons four and six. Fred Burkle in Angel was so useless by the end of the series that Whedon traded her in for a completely different character, the ancient goddess, Illyria. Similarly, Hawkeye felt a bit tacked on at times.

Another of Whedon’s favourite motifs popped up too. The strong, empowered female with quick wit and dry, sometimes even dark, humour has become a signature of Whedon’s work. It exists in Buffy right through to The Avengers. Both Black Widow and Maria Hill show various elements of this in The Avengers. Sometimes, it seemed like Cobie Smulders was getting a lot to do at the expense of characters such as Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson’s character, Black Widow, seemed like the most proactive of all the characters. Sure, Tony Stark was hacking into the system and Captain America was looking around in the storage bay but Black Widow was the only one grilling Loki and tricking him in the interrogation. That’s not to say that their importance in the film was overplayed but it definitely felt as though Whedon was trying to make us like both of them as much as we were meant to like Thor, Captain America or Iron Man.

Furthermore, for a film that was so detailed due to the world building that went on throughout Iron Man 2 and Thor there seemed to a few areas where the writing was just a tad vague. The main offenders were the Chitauri. Who are they? They’re the skeleton army that was given to Loki at the beginning of the movie but their name is only mentioned once and it’s never explained who they are or where they come from. This is mostly due to the fact that they’re based on the Skrull army but the rights to the Skrull race belong to Fox, who own the rights to The Fantastic Four. The Chitauri are a variant of the Skrull race from an alternate reality, although they’re still not represented in the film as they are in the comics. But that’s fine. They already made Nick Fury black so no one is going to complain. It’s just a little unsatisfying that the writing made no attempt to explain the nature of this army.

Kneel before Zod…oh wait, wrong movie…

One final hanging thread on the otherwise awesome tapestry of The Avengers is actually an offset from post – credits scene of Thor. In that scene, Nick Fury is seen showing the Tesseract to Stellan Skarsgård’s character, Dr. Erik Selvig, but the camera then pans out to show Loki in his reflection. The problem with this is two-fold. First of all, it implies that Loki, somehow, inhabited the body of Dr. Selvig or impersonated him but this concept appeared nowhere in The Avengers. So, what exactly was going on there? Additionally, this scene suggested that Loki was already on Earth or capable of passing from one world to the next freely, whereas we clearly saw the Tesseract being used to open a portal and send Loki to Earth at the beginning of The Avengers. There are some discrepancies between the scenes and the end result in the films. And for a film where continuity seemed to be of the utmost importance, slips like those are disappointing.

However, as I’ve said, none of these are major flaws and mostly likely won’t ruin your overall enjoyment of the film. It truly was a great film and it undoubtedly showed that a film can employ continuity in the same way as a comic book or Television series. With that success, Marvel are now gearing up for a The Avengers 2 with sequels to all the previous films in the series and probably a couple solo outings for the members of the team that didn’t get any last time, namely Black Widow. Let’s see if they can catch lightning twice.

America

Following the release of the Captain America movie, we now stand on the brink of the Avengers film. This film has to be one of the biggest, ambitious films of the century because it is a film which depends on you having watched a series of five different films, only two of which feature the same title character; Iron Man 1 & 2, The Hulk, Thor and now finally, Captain America. Those films only have the loosest of tie-ins from the appearance of shield in Iron Man 2 or the Asguardian magic present in Captain America, but all of the title characters and a few of the minor characters introduced will appear in The Avengers. Captain America is the last film, introducing the leader of the Avengers by taking us back to World War II.

Unfortunately, Captain America feels exactly like an extended back story to Steve Rogers. This is possibly a criticism that could be made of all the films building to the Avengers because they are extended back stories so that when you sit in the theatre to watch the final accumulation of these five titles you’ll know exactly who you’re watching. The problem here is that the back story is far too strongly apparent, when it should be in the back ground. Thor managed to pull this off, although whether that was due to a better script or the fine directing of Kenneth Branagh I can’t say. What I can say is that Captain America didn’t manage it in quite the same way.

It's about one thing, and one thing only: Killin' Nazis.

In case you don’t know, this is the story of Steven Rogers, an idealistic, patriotic American living in the 1940s when America became involved in the Second World War. He’s eager to fight because, as he puts it, ‘I don’t like bullies’. His health and physique however, aren’t up to standard and he is repeatedly rejected from military service. That is until a German scientist sees potential for Rogers to be involved in a secret project. Rogers is injected with the super soldier serum, turning his spindly, weak body into a bulging wall of muscle capable of feats of agility, strength and rapid healing. This has the humorous effect of making Rogers incapable of getting drunk creating a superhero that is essentially innocent and pure whether he wants to be or not. The serum is explicitly stated to emphases what is already in Rogers, creating the need for Rogers to remain what he is characteristically. This is reflected in the main threat of the film, Red Skull, leader of the Nazi technology development division named Hydra. Red Skull literally has a skull that has been burned crimson by the super soldier serum, although whether this is because the serum wasn’t perfected or because Johann Schmidt (played fantastically by Hugo Weaving) was already such a devious individual isn’t made clear but it is somewhat implied to be the latter.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why Steve Rogers isn’t actually as interesting as Thor or Iron Man as a character. Both Thor and Tony Stark start their respective films in one state or one mindset and grow throughout the film. This development keeps their characters interesting until the end, but as I said, Rogers is essentially required to be the same from start to end, so he begins as a patriotic young man, determined to defend his country and ends the film as a patriotic young man having recently defended his country. There is no character development only movement of plot, so Steve Rogers actually feels kind of shallow and weak as a character. I have no doubt that this will likely be more interesting against the foil of Thor with his old fashioned values and his love of fighting or against the comedy of the witty and wise cracking Tony Stark who seems as interested in public display as he is about saving the world. The latter will likely be the most interesting clash because Captain America actively rejected the public fanfare because he would rather have been saving an entire platoon of soldiers, including his best friend. This is pretty much a fair summary of the character though. He shows no cowardice or desire to quit, even before he has health and his super soldier form given to him, sometimes even to the point of recklessness and self sacrifice. At times he seems to have a messiah complex, trying to save everyone and everything himself, but this is never really resolved or explored aside from when Bucky (played by Sebastian Stan of Gossip Girl fame) dies and he tries futilely to get drunk. The minor characters are all involved in the same goal and generally appreciate his abilities because they are at war. Even his Commanding Officer, played by Tommy Lee Jones, eventually comes around to his abilities although he is initially wary of the effectiveness of Dr. Abraham Erskine’s experiment on Rogers. So while none of the minor characters in Captain America have enough motivation to really bring out enough diversity in Steve Rogers, The Avengers film will likely be more effective in this area because it involves a diverse range of characters and furthermore, it will be set in the modern world where Roger’s patriotism will just seem quaint.

The patriotism in the film is actually refreshing compared to most films set in war time. It is nationalistic without being jingoistic. When questioned about wanting to fight Rogers is quick to quip that he doesn’t want to kill anyone. For Rogers the Second World War is about protecting and surviving with as many people while sending the Nazi’s into retreat, simply proving that they can’t have their own way all the time. Much of the propaganda from the time would have certainly played up the concept of protecting America but would also have urged able young men to join the military to defeat the Nazis. In this case, defeat by no uncertain terms means kill, especially since a large influx of men would have joined following the attack on Pearl Harbour. In some ways revenge was as strong a motivation in the Second World War as defence, but Roger’s motivation isn’t about revenge at all. Even after Bucky dies, he is still motivated by protecting America as much as he wants to avenge the death of his friend. The film does a good job however of depicting Germans as well. They aren’t all evil and in fact it is a German doctor that eventually gives Rogers the opportunity to protect his country, and the German scientist employed by Red Skull at times seems extremely uneasy with the direction that Schmidt is taking the Hydra. This gives the distinct impression that the Second World War was not good versus evil. There are no simple categories and distinctions that you can put all Americans or all Germans in. They are both simply human, capable of great good, great evil or being pressured and victimised into following either side. The film is commendable on not attempting to turn World War II into an epic battle between absolute good and utter evil.

The Cast and Production members for the Avengers assemble.

Another impressive feature is the digital reconstruction of Chris Evans to reduce his natural frame into the considerably less physically imposing form of Steve Rogers.  Apparently it was done via a number of layering techniques, and required the scenes to be shot a number of times some with Evans, some with the other characters and a further few times with either both or neither. The end result is actually remarkably believable and never really interferes with the other parts of the scene. This is particularly good because the producers obviously want you to see Steve Rogers has being smaller and weaker than the eventual Captain America form he will take but it shouldn’t be so ostentatious that it detracts from everything else going on in the scene, such as dialogue and plot. This was a recent criticism made of the Green Lantern film because the CGI in the film was considered to be too glaring, although I personally never had much of a problem with it, but Captain America seems to navigate the perilous pitfalls of visual effect shots rather successfully.

On the whole, the film is worth watching but it’s not the finest Marvel movie ever made. I found the characters to be entertaining but shallow and lacking development, and the plot was fairly average with no real surprises along the way. The depiction of 1940s America and the war time themes were accurate and unbiased which adds to the setting and world vision of the film. However, the portrayal of America and fancy production effects don’t really stop the film from feeling like 124 minutes of back story and build up, rather than being a self contained film. I’d be curious to know if people unaware or uninterested in the Avengers film found the film to be entertaining, or if it simply felt directionless and unsatisfying because the main villain isn’t exactly defeated as such, and the main romance isn’t fully realised. I’m looking forward to The Avengers, and I enjoyed Captain America, but it really felt as though it could have been so much more.