Consensus: A billion-dollar sequel that needs to scale itself down to reality.

Rating: 6/10 (9 May 2015)

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the Marvel Studio's movie equivalent to Hulk. It is big, fierce and green (translates to a lot of money), yet it is devoid of any real emotional component. The stakes are definitely higher as our favorite band of superheroes team up once again to take down another noteworthy adversary: Ultron. Unlike previous enemies in the MCU, the mischievous robotic creature voiced by James Spader, was created by error from the tasteful mind of Tony Stark. Ultron's inception was triggered by Dr. Banner's and Mr.Stark's dream of upholding world peace- well not exactly. Their ambitions were misplaced; when they decided to pursue the route of artificial intelligence and integrate it in Stark's already existent peacekeeping program (controlled by Jarvis). When things take a turn for the worse, Ultron misbehaves and chooses to go out on a bender to destroy mankind rather than protect it.
Now that we have established the premise, let me start my review. Comic-books are a strong source material considering we have the technological advances in filmmaking today- to reproduce our favorite characters with pinpoint accuracy. However, CGI or computer generated images, should be complementary to these Marvel films and should not dominate every facet of them. In Captain America: The Winter Solider, we discovered the promising new face of the MCU and the capabilities of Kevin Feige and his team to deliver great pieces of cinema- while using the everlasting IP (intellectual property) from Marvel comics. The movie was grounded in reality and the CGI did not overshadow the spy and political undertones present in the film. Fast- forward to the release of the Avengers sequel- expectations were high, the crowd wanted the same dark tone the trailers promised and expected Marvel to continue on the great path forged in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
The Avengers are starting a dangerous precedent for upcoming blockbusters. Let me clarify what I mean- there will be a point in the near future where only a handful of directors or creative geniuses will be able to take these comic-book franchises further (by creating unique films). You can't just keep on increasing the stakes (CGI, scale, plot, enemies you get the picture) and expect people to pay to see the movie. Let's assume Captain America 2 was not directed by - the Ruso brothers. What would that signify for the MCU? Specifically, what would happen to the future blockbusters at Marvel Studios? People generally think that one director (or in this case a pair of directors) is not able to change Marvel's strong fan-base and that die-hard geeks will continue to surge into the theaters at every MCU film release. I strongly feel that at this stage - you need visionaries to take comic-book characters and revolutionize them. Otherwise, you will be left with films like Age of Ultron- a fun popcorn flick with a substantial lack of ingenuity.
Studios expect a return on investment just weeks after a blockbuster like Age of Ultron opens. This can put an extreme amount of pressure to succeed on the director- in this case, Joss Whedon. There is no magic formula to gross $1Billion Dollars at the box-office, however there are ways to increase your odds. One way is to hire a competent and shrewd individual such as Christopher Nolan- who will take a source material, re-imagine it and deliver a chef-d'oeuvre in the process. Nolan applied real world dilemmas we face in the 21st century (crime, corruption, identity-crises) and integrated them seamlessly into the script. That's how you get a Dark Knight. Marvel Studios definitely does a great job at trying to hire actors and directors that are more-than-qualified to be in the MCU- however their approach is becoming too mainstream.
Let me elaborate, they are recruiting guys like Joss Whedon- who despite knowing the comics well and having had directing credits in the past- is not a GENIUS VISIONARY. You need artists that are willing to take risks and create their own universe, not just the Marvel Universe- their personal vision for the film. For example: James Gunn tried doing just that with Guardians of the Galaxy and it turned out to become a sleeper-hit in 2014. Bottom-line, the films in the MCU need to be personal and cannot be controlled frame-by-frame by studio execs who have no artistic integrity and definitely do not have the talent necessary to release masterpieces.
In conclusion, Age of Ultron falls in the category of films that are not particularly memorable, and that's all that should be said about it. This is a bad indicator for Marvel- who wants to take this franchise into new dimensions (literally and figuratively). The lesson here: hire an average filmmaker and you get a mediocre product.