Movie Review - The Avengers

How much more I enjoyed watching The Avengers in 2D rather than through the mud and blur and migraine of threedy. I felt like a partially sighted man suddenly given the gift of 20/20 vision. "Look at how beautiful it all is!" I cried at the cinema screen. "The colours so bright and vivid, the action distinctive, the background detail actually visible... I can see - I CAN SEE!"

In truth, The Avengers looks no better or worse than any other big screen FX fest. Unless you watch it in 3D... when it looks just as bad as every other big screen 3D FX fest. I couldn't help thinking of those adverts in which terribly earnest thesps like Ray "Cant" Winstone or Tim from The Office (you might know him as Dr. Watson or The Hobbit, but he'll always be Tim from The Office to me) encourage us not to download badly pirated movies from t'internet because not only are we damaging the film industry, but "the picture quality is rubbish". And yet (not that I've ever downloaded any badly pirated movies from t'internet), I imagine that'd still be preferable to watching said movies in 3D. But...

...enough about all that. What about the newly crowned BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND EVER movie, the superhero blockbuster even the most churlish of critics are lauding (with the exception of Philip French's wonderfully pompous review in The Observer, which begins thus...

"Unhappy the land that has no heroes!" someone remarks to Bertolt Brecht's Galileo. "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes," Galileo replies.

...and you can guess the rest); what about The Avengers? Is it any cop?

Well, yes. It's not an unqualified success, but it does the job far better than it might have... if not quite as well as I'd hoped. All the main characters are well-handled, although it's new-boy Mark Ruffalo who really shines as the most likeable Bruce Banner since Bill Bixby's David and a more enjoyable Hulk to boot. Robert Downey Jr's insistence on throwing away some of his best lines continues from Iron Man 2; Chris Evans brings flashes of nobility to the otherwise faintly ridiculous Captain America; and Chris Hemsworth's Thor faces real competition from his half-brother Loki, with Tom Hiddleston almost stealing the movie after a somewhat muted performance first time out. (I love his Loki-grin.) Scarlett Johansson is slightly less annoying than she was in Iron Man 2 and a whole lot less annoying than she is in anything else and Jeremy Renner rather draws the short arrow as a mindwashed Hawkeye stolen from the first half and given little development as a result.

The script has some nice visual gags and typically Whedon one-liners (when RDJ's goatee isn't fast-talking them into inaudibility) and the fanboys will be happy to see that virtually every character gets the chance to go one-on-one up against each other. Best are the scenes where someone faces off against the aforementioned God of Mischief... Fury vs. Loki, Cap vs. Loki, Widow vs. Loki, Stark vs. Loki... and, best of all, the hilarious Hulk vs. Loki sequence which is worth the price of admission on its own. The hero-on-hero fight sequences (while necessary to slake the geek thirst) seem a little forced... and the film is at least 20 minutes too long, especially considering how little actual story there is to go round. I was impressed by the way the writers tied together the earlier movies, making each a genuine prequel to the main event, but after that it's a mishmash of chase scene, destructo-porn and quipping slugfest right up to the closing credits. I'd have hoped for a few more plot twists... especially from Loki, the king of crafty shenanigans. And the Big Bad Reveal at the end is distinctly underwhelming, even for fanboys who know who Thanos is. I reckon they only roped him in to piss on DC's Darkseid chips should that fabled JLA movie ever get past the planning stages. Oh, sorry, was that a spoiler? Pretend I wrote it in 3D and you'll not even notice it was there...

Where I'm At

It's been a busy week here at SOS towers, so apart from the keeping-the-wolf-from-the-door opportunism of my previous post (apologies to those of you wondering why I broke off my musical journey into space for an entirely unrelated Top Ten... but I had to find some way to afford the Amazing Spider-Man Omnibus Volume 2) things have been rather quiet on the blogging front.

That's not to say I've not been writing blog posts. I've actually been employed to write them for my University (where I'm currently studying my PGCE). There's not a whole lot of money in it and I'm only writing one post a week, but every little helps... as I believe one of our Evil Corporate Overloads has it. My Uni Blog is probably of very little interest to anyone reading this (hell, Sunset Over Slawit is probably of very little interest to anyone reading this), but should you have a spare five minutes, you can always click here.

Meanwhile, for those of you wondering why I haven't posted my review of The Avengers (not "Marvel Avengers Assemble" - an idiotic title made created by idiots who believe even bigger idiots might confuse it with Patrick MacNee and Honor Blackman), the truth is I need to see it again first. Or rather, I need to see it properly first. Because, through an unfortunate series of circumstances entirely beyond my control, I ended up watching it the first time in 3D. Yes, I knew that would be a mistake, but I thought I'd be able to ignore the stupid fx and just enjoy the film. Unfortunately, this wasn't to be, and I spent the entire time feeling twice removed from the film, constantly aware that I was watching something and struggling so much to focus on the dark and blurry (i.e. 3D) images that I was unable to immerse myself in the story or even follow the dialogue. So my review of the film - at this point - would be far more negative than expected. I'm hoping that will change once I've seen it the way God intended us to watch movies... because what I could make out through the unfocussed murk looked like it had a fair bit of potential. Just not in 3D.

Movie Review: Ghost Rider - Spirit of Vengeance

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

Like most sane moviegoers, I didn't have a great deal of time for the original Ghost Rider movie. OK, it was a stinker. So why, pray tell, did I plunk down my hard earned shekels (well, I.'s hard-earned shekels, since we went on Orange Wednesday and he took pity on my unemployed ass and gave me the GOF of his BO) on the second one? My defence goes thus...

1. I like Ghost Rider. He's one of those Marvel B-listers I've always had a soft spot for even though very few writers seem able to make him work. JM DeMatteis managed it back when I was a kid and Jason Aaron knocked it out of the park recently, but beyond that I can't think of too many other great Ghost Rider stories. The potential is there though, as I discovered while writing this week's Thoughtballoons script based on the character. There's so much can be done with this concept. Sadly, the writers of this movie (mostly David bloody Goyer, Hollywood's go-to guy for bad - and occasionally surprisingly good - superhero movies) preferred to run with a tepid combo of Hellboy, The Omen and The Fast & The Furious... and however exciting you might think that sounds: trust me, you're wrong.

2. I (used to) like Nicholas Cage. And every now and then he makes a film which shows a spark of the manic genius he displayed in Wild At Heart or Bad Lieutenant rather than just SHOUTING ALL THE TIME and ACTING REALLY BADLY. Sadly, this was not to be one of those films. Hey, Nick, if you love Ghost Rider as much as you say you do... why didn't you put some bloody effort in?

3. Idris Elba was in it. I like him a lot. He made the absolute most of an underwritten role and provided a couple of moments of blessed comic relief. Many more were needed. Meanwhile, Ciaran Hinds popped up as the devil. Another hugely talented actor... wasted.

4. The reviews told me this one was much better than the first. They lied.


On the other hand, I can't say the warning signs weren't there. I should have paid more attention to the following...


1. The directors, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, are most famous for making dumb action movies starring Jason blinkin' Statham. Their style can best be described as "less accomplished Guy Ritchie". I hate Guy Ritchie.

2. It was only possible to watch this movie in 3D. Which is strange as Spirit of Vengeance featured the least gratuitous 3D effects of any pointlessly 3D film I've seen in recent times. In fact, other than the fact I was wearing those stupid glasses so (as usual) my eyes hurt and I couldn't focus on the whole of the screen... at no point was I aware of any 3D effects whatsoever. It was like watching a 2D movie with 3D glasses on. I'd rather have just watched it the way god intended.

3. There was a sequence in which Ghost Rider takes a leak and pisses fire. As if to suggest this might be the highlight of the movie, they even included it in the trailer. It was desperate, humourless and lacking in imagination. Actually, that was pretty representative of the movie as a whole. I take that back: it belonged in the trailer. It should have been the whole trailer. 30 seconds of Ghost Rider weeing. That would have been apt.

Movie Review: Immortals

I do so hate it when someone whose opinion I value and respect gets to review a movie on their blog before I do. Especially if they like it and I think it sucks wet ass through a straw. Who am I to disagree with Steve? His opinion is, I'm sure you'll agree, far more worthy than mine. He has the wisdom of age behind him, for one thing. Look, if you think Immortals is your kind of movie, stop reading this review now and go read Steve's. But if you want to hear someone have a good old moan...

I think I may have a problem with director Tarsem Singh. I didn't notice his name in the credits, I hadn't read it in any reviews, yet I soon recognised his style from the last time I was forced to sit through one of his films: The Cell starring Jennifer Lopez and Vince Vaughan (from way back in 2000). Like that film, Immortals is visually stunning. Both will stick in my mind as being two of the most picturesque movies I've ever seen. Tarsem certainly puts the money up there on the screen and has a painter's eyes for detail. Every shot is like Michelangelo meets Salvador Dali. It's almost more than the human eye can contain. And this one was in 3D too... you know what a colossal waste of space I consider 3D to be, an affront to right-thinking cinema audience everywhere... and yet good old Tarsem made it work. The 3D actually looked good. No, screw that, the 3D took my breath away.

It's a shame then that, as with The Cell, all Tarsem's attention goes on the visuals. Certainly none of it goes on securing a decent script to work from. You can't blame the plot - that's as old as the hills, but the script... man, this script was bad. Can we say "style over substance"? Can we tattoo it on Tasem's forehead so he'll see it every morning when he washes his face? Can we talk about the actors now?

The star of the movie is Henry Cavill, about who I knew very little beforehand except that he's been cast as the new Superman. You know what? I can see that. He did a pretty good job of pitching his Theseus somewhere between the big blue boyscout and his speccy, stuttering alter ego. Doesn't mean I gave a monkeys what happened to him, or the impossibly beautiful Freida Pinto who plays his oracle. Beyond them, John Hurt plays John Hurt (his default position these days) and Mickey Rourke plays the old Avengers baddie Orka The Killer Whale. Seriously. Compare the photo above with the cover below and you'll see what I mean.

Beyond that, I have little else to add. Immortals gives lie to the old maxim that you can't polish a turd. It seems, after all, you can. You can paint it up to be the most spectacular, sparkly, devastatingly beautiful turds anyone has ever seen - in 3D too! At the end of the day though, it's still a bum radish.

On the other hand...

Drive Angry 3D

I've been openly mocking Nicolas Cage's new film, Drive Angry 3D, since I saw the first poster.

Especially considering the woeful travesty that was the fat-faced, Elvis-voiced goon's last flick, Season Of The Witch.

Especially considering I hate the current obsession with forcing unnecessary (and really quite shoddy) 3D fx into every single big budget pic Hollywood churns out these days. (I read the other day that Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of The Great Gatsby* is even going to be filmed in 3D... WTF?)

Especially considering it has one of the worst titles of any movie released this century...


So, with all that in mind, why the hell did we go see it?

Because we're fools. Fools, I tell you, crazy fools!

Because I've seen nothing but worthy, intelligent Oscar contenders over the last few weeks and I needed some trash.

And because sometimes, shit films can be fun.


But do you know what? Drive Angry 3D isn't as bad as you think it will be. It's actually a big cheesy helping of B-movie fun. If you enjoyed Tarantino & Rodriguez's Grindhouse double bill, this shares a similar lineage and combines the best elements of both.

The premise is straight out of a 70s shlockbuster. Nicolas Cage has escaped from hell to take revenge on the sneeringly evil cult leader who killed his daughter and stole his only grandchild. (Yes, Cage is now old enough to play a grandpa. Cut him some slack on the fat face.) Along the way he hooks up with sexy, spunky waitress Amber Heard who drives some huge slab of speedy American-made metal and needs help dealing with her abusive redneck boyfriend. Cage also tries his best to steer clear of a demonic accountant played with scenery-chomping glee by William Fichtner (you know, the guy Hollywood always hire when they can't afford Christopher Walken). Much car-chasing, truck-exploding, shotgun-blasting mayhem ensues, all in the worst possible taste, punctuated by crass-but-funny one-liners and heavy rock power chords. It's utter nonsense, but it knows it. And you can't fault it for that.

Only two things disappoint. One is the cameo by NYPD Blue's Charlotte Ross (aka the third Mrs. Sipowicz) as a trashy waitress who gets to have sex with Cage while he kills a gang of attacking meatheads. It's a cute scene and there's nothing wrong with Ross's performance, it's just a shame to see her reduced to this kind of role, botox and all.

And then there's the 3D. Which I still think both gratuitous and distracting. I'd much rather have watched the film without it, though sadly we weren't given that option. And I still resent having to pay an extra £3 to watch a movie in a format that actually makes the visual experience less distinct, harder to follow, and much less enjoyable. But I appear to be in the minority on that one.

Still, against all odds, Drive Angry 3D delivered. I even appreciated the character names - Milton (Cage), Piper (Heard) and Webster (an unexpected cameo from David Morse). More thought went into this picture than you'd ever have expected... but let's face it, you weren't expecting much.



*Sadly, that wasn't a joke.