The Avengers

So finally we have the culmination of 4 years of foreshadowing from 5 blockbusters and the pay-off to Marvel Studios' carefully constructed shared universe- The Avengers.Whilst I'm here, safely in the confines of the preamble bit before I get down to the serious reviewin' stuff. The title.

Here in the dull ol' UK, it's been renamed Marvel's Avengers Assemble, which being the cool and rebellious guy that I am, I point blank refuse to call it by its new title. It just reeks of a last-minute bullshit marketing decision that doesn't make any sense anyway. Did they really think that renaming the film to avoid confusion with the '60s TV show (and the '90s warcrime of a film) would boost sales at all? The target demographic for this film is far too young to know of  the '60s Avengers and I'm sure "the oldies" out there will realise this isn't another big-screen adaptation of Steed and Peel's eccentric adventures when they see a socking great photo of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man on the huge billboards that are literally everywhere. Seriously, look out of your window right now. There's probably about seven of them in viewable distance by my calculations. Plus, it's hardly like the latest batch of Marvel films were only seen and appreciated by mouth-breathing greasy teens, considering their seriously healthy box-office numbers. Fuck that weak-ass title and more importantly, fuck the bullshit pie-in-the-sky marketing tossdrivel that forces awful decisions like this. Am I overreacting? I really don't think so. If you think "Who cares? It's only a stupid name." or something similar, let's change the name of The Godfather to The Fartspunk then, since titles don't matter. Art, no matter how populist, should never be compromised by the clammy, inhuman hand of marketing- exactly why I went to see Avengers Assemble in retrofitted IMAX 3D.

The Avengers (2012)

Having been an unashamed Marvel fanboy since I got my first taste of comics when I was a tiny, annoying child, it's no exaggeration to say that I have dreamed of an Avengers movie ever since I can remember. A shared universe was an incredibly exciting concept and I loved it when my personal favourite, Spider-Man would be visited by the X-Men or the Fantastic Four. Once X-Men kicked off the superhero adaptation trend back in 2000 and Spider-Man cemented it in 2002 by becoming a fucking megahit (technical term), I must admit that my excitement that all my printed pals were being brought to life was tinged slightly when I realised that all the properties were being snatched up by rival movie studios with all the speed and aggression of a particularly heated game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos. Studios aren't exactly known for sharing their IPs and my hopes of seeing Cap popping up in Daredevil's part of New York, let alone a massive superhero team-up seemed upsettingly unlikely. Still, once Marvel created Marvel Studios and started treating their properties their way, starting with 2008's stellar Iron Man I could start to dream again. What I'm saying by this wanky, smack-in-the-face obvious paragraph is that I personally had a lot riding on this film, in the same way I'm sure millions of others had too. I'm not only relieved, but fucking ecstatic to tell you that (at least for me) The Avengers somehow met my unreasonably high expectations and then some. It's truly amazing.

"Let's do a headcount: Your brother- the demigod; a super-soldier, a living legend who actually lives up to the legend; a man with breathtaking anger management issues; a couple of master assassins; and you've managed to piss off every single one of us."

 The Avengers focuses on the delivery of Nick Fury's (Samuel L. Jackson) much teased "Avengers Initiative"- a plan to bring Earth's mightiest heroes together, (deep breath) Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Capt. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor Odinson (Chris Hemsworth), Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johannson) or more accurately, their superhero alter-egos (Iron Man, Captain America, er... Thor, The Hulk, Hawkeye and Black Widow) to answer a threat to the planet's freedom, namely Thor's adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and his army of alien invaders. I had initially feared that The Avengers would turn into The Tony Stark Show, but co-writer and director Joss Whedon manages to equally balance all the competing egos without letting characters fade into the background, something he's already proved time and time again with his work on his various projects including the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly TV shows and his highly regarded run on The Astonishing X-Men comic series. Typical of Whedon, the script is damn funny and the dialogue is slick and snappy. Thankfully, there's no significant disconnect between the heroes' solo efforts and their presentation here. The Avengers' Iron Man is just as sarcastic and egomaniacal as you'd expect from his two previous cinematic outings. This also means I get to save space by telling you to read my reviews of the preceding 5 films for specific actor comments. Of the new blood, Jeremy Renner is pretty decent as Hawkeye, giving us a solid, Daniel Craig-as-Bond type badass, Cobie Smulders is fine (in all sense of the word) as Maria Hill,  but the talking point will be Ruffalo's Banner who gives us the most endearing take on the character yet. I'm praying for a Ruffalo Hulk solo film after his performance here. Hiddleston's Loki is undeniably nastier this time round and makes for a genuinely loathsome bastard for the Avengers to rally against.

The film The Avengers reminded me of most was actually the third Transformers film, Dark of the Moon. Before you run screaming, let me explain. The epic scale is similar, the astounding special effects have a Bay-esque tinge to them and even the third act is very Dark of the Moon. However- and here's the crucial part, dearies- I actually gave enough of a shit about the characters involved to be impressed and involved by the sheer spectacle of it. The Avengers earns its epic finale with all the fantastic characterisation, witty dialogue and thrilling action sequences beforehand. Dark of the Moon simply couldn't wait to shove its expensive pixels in your face and was perfectly happy to chuck lowest common denominator humour and bargain bin writing at you until it could justify another expensive set piece. I don't want to spoil too much, but there are certain confrontations and team-ups between the various super-powereds that just make this movie. There's a fantastic shot in the final act of the film that shows all of the heroes teaming up in awesome ways that nearly made me whoop with joy. If I wasn't laughing at the choice lines, I was smiling at the sheer cathartic awesomeness of Cap and Ol' Shellhead taking on Loki, for example. Suffice to say my face hurt coming out of the film.

I honestly can't think of many negative things to say about the film. I would say the opening isn't the best, with an uninspired car chase and some forced dialogue betraying the rest of the film. The 3D is (predictably) not needed in the slightest, but I would urge you to see The Avengers on the biggest screen possible. Preferably with the loudest speakers too. Story-wise, I wasn't a huge fan of the way they merely skirted around Thor's ability to return to Earth (people who have seen Thor will recall he was trapped on his homeworld) and I guess Black Widow and Hawkeye aren't given as much to do as the superstar celebrity Avengers are, but these are minor, minor complaints. Also, whilst The Avengers works as a stand-alone film, I do feel you'll get more out of it if you've seen (and more importantly, liked) the previous Marvel Studios titles. The film does a good job of characterising the superhero squad, but you'll simply be more invested if you're that much more familiar with the characters.

"If we can't protect the Earth, you can be damn well sure we'll avenge it."

The Avengers makes all that teasing, foreshadowing and promising worthwhile. The big question I suppose is whether or not it dethrones the mighty Dark Knight in the "best superhero film ever" stakes. I'd prefer to sidestep that. It's just as awesome, but in a different way. It's part of a completely different spectrum of superhero adaptations. It's certainly the purest superhero film out there, but I can't see them using that on the poster anytime soon. It's been a long time since I left the cinema with my mind blown, a seemingly permanent smile on my face and my faith fully restored in the film-viewing experience. It's just so rare to see a blockbuster that works this well and for it to be such an unmitigated success. Go and see this film. Multiple times. And take me with you.

Titanic 3D

As it comes out at the end of the week, I thought I'd share my review of Titanic 3D on my own blog. It originally appeared on The People's Movies, where I also do whatever it is I do.

Titanic 3D (2012)

I suppose any review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, still one of the highest grossing films ever, is a bit pointless. Chances are high that you’ve already seen Cameron’s “disasterpiece” and have already made up your mind whether or not to watch it with stupid specs on. Having only seen Titanic on VHS several eons ago, it was an interesting experience to see it all on the big screen and I felt I could view the film with fresh eyes, feeling like I needed a new pair after 3 hours of headache-inducing dimensionality.

"I'm the king of the world!"

As Titanic is one of the most famous films ever, I know you don’t need a plot summary, but I like the way my keyboard clickety-clacks when I type so I’ll give you one anyway. We join a group of scruffy treasure hunters searching for the Heart of the Ocean, a hugely valuable blue diamond necklace, amongst the sunken remains of the Titanic. During their fruitless search, they come across a nude portrait of a woman wearing the sought-after jewel. Turns out this woman’s still alive and is choppered out to the salvage vessel where she tells a tale of true love between her 17 year old self (Kate Winslet) and grimy dreamboat Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and her personal experience of the tragic sinking. It’s not hard to see why this was the planet’s favourite flick at one time. It’s a classic love story that clearly struck a chord with audiences worldwide. Thing is, both DiCaprio and Winslet are pretty wooden as the leads. They’ve both evolved into great actors, but I was surprised at how bland they both were here. Still, great acting is not required in Titanic. Many characters are as broadly painted as they come in order for as many people as possible to buy into the central romance. Billy Zane’s rich fiancée Cal, for instance, is basically a Disney villain, specifically Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He’s an easy hate figure, being insanely rich and a douchebag to boot. He starts off as a snobby jerk but soon descends into moustache-twirling territory later on when he hits Rose, frames Jack and uses a lost, crying child as a ticket onto one of the lifeboats.

The love story doesn’t gel with me, but I get that it’s a romantic fantasy. Just because I can’t stretch my suspension of disbelief that far, doesn’t mean other people can’t . It’s not a documentary. It’s basically Romeo and Juliet where Verona sinks. To me, Titanic works as a hallmark of epic filmmaking. I am loath to use the increasingly devalued word “epic”, but I use it in its correct sense, not in the sense that you and your squealing, vapid friends had an “epic” weekend. The scale of the film is really impressive. Whilst some of the then-ground breaking CGI looks slightly dated, it still doesn’t spoil the overall grandiose feeling . The actual sinking of the ship is still as awe-inspiring and horrific as it ever was. It’s all incredibly well handled by Cameron, who keeps everything as practical and as realistic as possible, despite the heavy use of effects. The last half of the film really pulls things together. It becomes tense, exciting and affecting. If you don’t feel something when the band plays “Nearer My God to Thee” and we see an old couple hunkered down in their bed as the seawater fills the room or when we see a mother reading her kids a permanent bedtime story, you’re dead inside. It’s rough stuff.

So then, the 3D. Well, it’s the best post-conversion job I’ve seen. Everything from the title to the icy finale is all sticky-outy. After Avatar, James Cameron has become the easily-punchable face of 3D and it’s clear he didn’t want to merely run it through a computer like 2010′s Clash of the Titans rush-job, post-conversion scam. Some actual thought has been put into this, but with all the things now sticking out at me, the one thing that was most prominent was the question “why?”. I can sort of understand the recent Star Wars re-release (although it doesn’t mean I can’t hate it as much as I do) as it’s a big sci-fi with space battles and the like. But Titanic is such an odd choice for 3D-ifying. Director/studio greediness aside, it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t add anything to the film at all. If anything, it makes the effects look worse. There’s a big, sweeping shot of the ship where it’s clear CGI versions of the actors are traversing the deck, plotting the ship’s course and chatting to each other. Thing is, 3D makes things look smaller and messes with your sense of scale. As a result, this particular shot looks like a clip from The Sims: Disaster Edition.

"I'll never let go, Jack. I'll never let go."

Titanic is a weird one, whilst I’m not convinced by the central romance or the acting, it still manages to be an entertaining disaster epic. Having said that, am I the only one who finds it a bit tacky to base a fictional love story around a real-life disaster? Are they going to do a buddy picture set in the Hindenburg next? This wouldn’t really be a problem, but I feel this is further cheapened by the fact that it’s now being re-released in gimmicky 3D to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the ship’s sinking. It’s a blatant, naked cash grab, not a heartfelt memorial. I’m not getting all moral on you or anything, just a thought. So, to recap: Titanic good, 3D not needed, the film clearly shows the door couldn’t support both of them- that’s why he’s in the water.

The Hunger Games

I'm back, baby! After a few months concentrating on selling out, I'm ready to rejoin the obscure bloggers' ranks once again. That's not to say I'm not going to continue infecting other parts of the 'Net. There's plenty of me to go around, guys. Well, if my BMI is anything to go by.

 The Hunger Games (2012)

Much like the Twilight series before it, it seems that The Hunger Games has tapped into the lucrative young teen market and made a goddamn bundle in the process. That's where the Twi-likenesses end though. On the subject of comparisons, let's get this out of the way. People of the Internet, you are not clever by saying things such as "I liked Hunger Games when it was called Battle Royale derp derp derp" and other anti-intellectualisms. Yeah, there are similarities- no question, but it's not the Americanised rip-off some people have been decrying it as. To my eyes, the film shares DNA with not only Battle Royale, but Lord of the Flies, The Running Man, The Truman Show and I even saw a little bit of First Blood in there (Katniss reminded me of a female Rambo or "Rambette", if you will.). Don't piss on things because they're popular, piss on them because they deserve it. Fact of the matter is, The Hunger Games doesn't deserve it. It is not, however, a frosty glass of Christ's spunk either, as some lesser, better paid critics have been saying. S'good. Isn't that enough?

"This is the time to show them everything. Make sure they remember you."

The Hunger Games is set in a futuristic, dystopian version of the United States called Panem, where the country is split up into an extremely wealthy capital and surrounded by 12 impoverished districts. As punishment for a working-class uprising over 70 years ago, a barbaric, televised gladiatorial battle called The Hunger Games is held each year in which 24 young people or "tributes" (a male and female from each district) are chosen by a lottery and forced to kill each other until only one victor remains. We join District 12's Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who volunteers to enter the games in place of her younger sister, and follow her journey to the Capitol along with male tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) as they prepare to fight for their lives. The overall plot is solid. I loved the backstory, the post-apocalyptic setting and the ideas and issues the film tackles. From the opening, there's a palpable sense of dread as we build up to the games themselves. This isn't some lunkhead action where the main character finally has an outlet for their mad brutality skillz (à la Ah-nuld in The Running Man). Whilst not helpless, Katniss is still vulnerable and we are scared for her. Speaking of Katnip Everyteen, Jennifer Lawrence is really impressive as the lead. She plays Katniss with a determined resignation, rather than slipping into ball-busting, female badass clichés. Josh Hutcherson was alright as Peeta, with most of his lines muted in my head due to his jaw being one of the squarest I've ever seen, second only to that guy in Michael Bay's 1996 masterpiece The Rock. Woody Harrelson pops up as a past champion with an understandable drinking problem. Donald Sutherland mumbles a few lines through a white beard, Elizabeth Banks changes costume a lot and Lenny Kravitz successfully pulls off gold eyeliner. Most of the adults are inconsequential. The focus here is on the kids and rightfully so.

The Hunger Games deals with some dark stuff. Children pitted against each other in a battle to the death is a terrifying concept. There's something deeply unsettling about how psyched Panem's 1% are for their annual crueltyfest. The thing that sent shivers down my spine is merely alluded to in general conversation between Katniss and hometown hunk Gale (Liam Hemsworth), where it transpires that if you are starving, you can get food from the government in exchange for another entry into the lottery. Brr. Despite being rabbited about endlessly, I didn't find the violence that shocking. It's pretty strong for a 12A, but Quantum of Solace had the same rating and had the unbelievably grim scene where the CraigHulk stabs a man in the neck before shanking him in the back of the thigh. He then proceeds to lie the man down, all the while checking his pulse and patiently waiting for the poor bastard to bleed out. My point is, hand-wringing parental groups and Daily Mail readers have (unsurprisingly) got it wrong. The film shouldn't be a 15. As a parent, you should just pay extra attention to the "A" bit in the 12A rating. The film sidesteps the gore anyway with liberal use of the Bourne shakycam, which can get distracting. However, at least its use here is justified given the already established fanbase, rather than just a cheap technique to make the film look "edgy" and "dynamic". The deaths are harrowing though, make no mistake. It's just some of them smack of compromise and considering the bleak, grim world we're presented, shying away from kiddie deaths at the last minute seems a bit pointless. I wasn't gunning for decapitations or anything, it's just really noticeable at times. Especially the fight with the psycho knife girl who (invisotext for spoilerphobes) seemingly just ups and dies after being slammed against a wall a few times.

I really liked the whole "playing up for the cameras" angle. Katniss is constantly reminded that it's a TV show and to court the sponsors who can aid her in battle with little gift packages like much-needed medicine. The fake relationship she has with Peeta is well handled and takes a few sideswipes at reality TV while it's at it. There are a few things that didn't make sense to me though. Why is she known as "The Girl on Fire" when Peeta was wearing the same outfit? Secondly, did Cinna just create this new technology of fake fire? Thirdly, what was the point in sucking up to the sponsors when Haymitch was the only one sending her stuff? FUCKING STOP RIGHT THERE. I know what Hunger Games fans are going to say: (adopt a grating nerd voice") "It's explained in the book blah blah blah" /nerdvoice. I don't care. A film adaptation is a tabula rasa as far as I'm concerned. It's the film's job to explain these technicalities if it includes them and it's the film's fault if it doesn't do that well enough. Having the commentators (Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones) explaining the rules of the games is a neat touch, but they are overused and soon become irritating. Also, Peeta's camouflage "skill" is laughable and raises more questions than it should. I felt the ending was rushed too, with some shonky CGI undercutting the drama somewhat. Still, (invisotext) I really liked Cato's last scene. Instead of just a psychopathic hulking brute, it turns out he had some humanity left in him too. Whilst in spoiler territory, Seneca Crane's (Wes Bentley) last scene was darkly brilliant. 

"May the odds be ever in your favour."

I thought The Hunger Games was great. It's dark, exciting and enthralling. It's a good, solid film that mostly sticks to its guns. Bring on the sequels.