REVIEW: Avengers Assemble

When you think about it, Avengers Assemble could have gone very wrong, very wrong indeed. A combination of being a successful comic book franchise as well as a culmination of several different film franchises means you have a large fan base waiting eager to judge, where any form of cock-up will result in heavy criticism and an almost unrecoverable backlash (remember Spider Man 3?).

So thank God that this film manages to avoid that. It's good. It's very good. In fact, I'd go so far to call it a masterpiece in its own right. Everything you come to expect from a film with this much hype is there - it delivers and then some.

For those of you who have been living in a cave for the past few years, Avengers Assemble (formerly known  as simply The Avengers) is the combination of the major Marvel comic book characters into a major world-saving squad. This involves (from their respective films) Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth), as well as somewhat lesser characters of Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). The concern was to whether characters from such different franchises would mix well in a collaborative film effort, in a project which must tie together a great deal of strands and still resemble a good, coherent film. Yet the Avengers pass this test with flying colours.

A great deal of the success of this film may be due to director Joss Whedon, a geek icon/hero/deity. The shows he created, such as Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, were praised for their great scriptwriting and characters. These qualities are certainly present in this, as the banter between characters truly gives the film its spark.

However, credit must also go to the tremendous cast as well. Downey Jr. is perhaps the highlight as quick-witted Tony Stark, but everyone has their moment to shine - including Mark Ruffalo, the third actor to play the Hulk, who fits Edward Norton's shoes very comfortably. Fans will no doubt be glad to see their favourite characters brought to life with such vigour and enthusiasm.

It really is hard to find flaw with Avengers Assemble. While the film doesn't truly come alive until its major players are introduced, and some characters are a bit hard to take seriously sometimes (come on Scarlett, how much damage are you really going to do with a pistol?), it still feels like a true cinematic treat, one of the sorts which come along rarely. Popcorn entertainment at its most enjoyable and intelligent level, I recommend you watch this as quickly as possible.

★★★★★

TV REVIEW: Derek

What's this? A television program analysis on a film review blog? It seems as if hypocrite is my middle name. Anyway, deal with it. I might do this from time to time.

 
By the time Derek was coming out, Ricky Gervais was by no means in my good books. After creating the ground-breaking, brilliant The Office and the, in some respects, just as good Extras, he chose the next step in his career to be a, frankly, insulting mockumentary about Warwick Davis, called Life's Too Short. After a patchy but somewhat promising pilot (with Liam Neeson, I might add) the show's true intentions were revealed over the next few episodes, where Gervais tried to be as politically incorrect as possible - the absolute nadir of the entire experience was a scene with a drunk naked dwarf throwing up on himself. The show was deeply unfunny, and, to the extent of my knowledge, pissed a lot of people off.

So Gervais' latest offering, Derek, was off to a bad start. But, having watched the one-off special, I've come to several conclusions. Firstly, a series will be made. There's little question about that. Secondly, excellent talent has been discovered in the form of Kerry Godliman. And finally, Gervais needs to write more serious stuff.

Before I go off on a tangent, let me just say what Derek is about. Ricky Gervais plays the titular character, who works in a nursing home. He obviously has learning difficulties, and he shows this by portraying the character with his jaw extended and with a nerdy, greasy haircut. Initially, this may be shown to be mocking, a la Life's Too Short, but Gervais' Derek is a surprisingly sympathetic character. He cares for people in the home like no-one else does, and genuinely enjoys his job, as he believes that old people deserve as much respect as everyone else. The message he portrays isn't subtle, but, in its context, works.

Then there is the supporting cast. As mentioned previously, Kerry Godliman is brilliant as Hannah, Derek's friend and fellow home worker. Her loneliness is perhaps one of the most touching aspects of the show, perfectly capturing the everyday insecurities of someone trapped in an endless cycle, her hopeless situation only alleviated by the antics of Derek and the possibility of romance from a visiting relative, although her attitudes won't allow her to let someone in. Elsewhere, Karl Pilkington fares surprisingly well in his first acting job, providing the lighter moments of the show.

However, it is here that the flaws of Derek lie. Let me make this clear; this show isn't funny. It may have been marketed as a comedy drama, but the comedy aspects of this are very weak indeed. In fact, I can't help but feel that this is Gervais falling back on old habits - one sequence shows him falling in a duck pond and then running through the home naked, which contrasts strongly against some of the more serious drama, and sticks out like a sore thumb. Thankfully, as the show progressing, most comedy disappears completely to make way for a truly heartbreaking ending, and one which improves the quality of Derek immensely.

Back to my initial thoughts - Gervais needs to write more serious stuff. He's already proven that he can handle dramatic material with ease. Don't believe me? See the "Don't make me redundant" speech in The Office, or the Big Brother speech in Extras - these made the comedy all the more richer, as without a beating heart, comedy is simply soulless.

So, here is my advice to Ricky, although I doubt he'll ever hear it;
1) Make Derek into a series - it's got the potential to be very good.
2) Stop with all the documentary crap. Seriously, it's just a tired format now, and it adds little to the show.
3) Make Derek into a drama. See above.
4) Hire me. Just a suggestion.

And there you have it. The steps to make Derek into a great success. Maybe.

REVIEW: 21 Jump Street

Let me just start off by saying that this is an incredibly funny film. In fact, for the first golden 30 minutes or so there's roughly a gag every ten seconds. Much like many comedies, some work, and some don't, but if one fails to hit the mark then it'll soon be replaced by one which splits your sides laughing.

So what is 21 Jump Street? Well, it's an adaptation of the late 80s television series (which kick-started Johnny Depp's career) about a duo of police officers sent to work undercover in a high school because of their youthful appearance. Yet while that was played somewhat straight, this film delights in doing it for the sake of comedy.

It also is very good at taking the ever-loving piss out of the tired buddy-cop movie clichés, so prominent in the eighties, and then fusing it with the modern-day culture. The framing device is that the two titular cops of the film – Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum – were, in high school, a nerd and a jock respectively. But when they return to high school to infiltrate a drug ring, their roles have switched due to the changing of the times.

It makes for an interesting experience for teenagers and adults alike. Adults will no doubt enjoy the sending up of the eighties, whereas teens will get the pop culture references and enjoy the occasional bit of gross-out humour. And it should also be said that the film has a respectable moral centre.

Jonah Hill does what he does best here, which is play the fat nerd with charm. Even if you're not his biggest fan – like me – you'll still find him funny. Yet the big surprise here is Channing Tatum. Famous for being one of the dullest actors on the planet, who's only made it this far because of his looks, he's finally found a role which works for him – and is genuinely very funny.

So for the most part, 21 Jump Street is very dumb but utterly hilarious. I don't want to spoil the film by giving away some of the jokes, so I'll just throw out some key words that I thought were highlights. The park. Miranda warning. A cameo from a Very Famous Actor. Anything Ice Cube says. That is all.

★★★½

REVIEW: Safe House

Paranoid conspiracy thrillers have, irritatingly, become a staple of Hollywood cinema of late. Every month or so, a movie will be released that focuses on some government agency, usually the CIA, and some poor schmuck who gets tangled up in a supposedly important and top-secret conspiracy, which, if unravelled, will expose corruption from within the agency. A craze I can't help but think that, as much as I love the films, was started by the Bourne trilogy.

So Safe House is unfortunately a prime example of this. A young rookie agent – Ryan Reynolds – is the "housekeeper" of a CIA "safe house". Hardman Denzel Washington, meanwhile, is brought in as a "houseguest", having just handed himself in in order to avoid being killed.  Mid-interrogation a group of intimidating men enter the building and proceed to shoot everything in sight, meaning Reynolds and Washington must go on the run to avoid being killed. Predictable plot twists ensue.

As you may have guessed from the previous paragraphs, this is a movie full of clichés. Everything has been done before and better. The only distinguishing aspect of the movie is its cast, the majority of who try to make the best of a flimsy plot. Denzel Washington brings his trademark charisma to the role, relishing the opportunity to be the bad guy, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Faminga are good in supporting roles and, despite all of his previous sins (Green Lantern, I'm looking at you), I actually don't mind Ryan Reynolds and his performance.

But the biggest flaw here is the movie itself, with its dull plot and characters, mostly consisting of chase scenes and the occasional bit of weak development. You could argue that it's light entertainment, and there are certainly worse films to go and see on a Friday night – however, there's an unpleasantness to the action, which makes the film feel grimy. All in all though, this is just the same film you saw last month.

★★

REVIEW: Carnage

Adapting the play The God of Carnage into a motion picture seemed like a strange choice to me for a number of reasons, but most prominently being the fact that the play consists of four actors doing very little but talk on stage for around 90 minutes or so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting it – on the contrary, in the atmosphere of the theatre this format often works very well, as we can focus on the script and characters with little distractions – but, traditionally, this doesn't translate particularly well to the medium of motion pictures.

Yet, despite being a shot-for-shot, or rather angle-for-shot, remake of the play (which feels like we're observing it from the best seats in the audience), Carnage actually does work.  It's a hugely entertaining slice of comedic drama, with emphasis on outrageous attitudes and unpleasant characters being humiliated and ridiculed for the sake of comedy. The story begins with two boys having a fight in the park, which leads to one attacking the other with a stick. It then moves on to their parents having a meeting discussing their sons' behaviour and the subsequent action they should take. As the afternoon progresses, however, the social boundaries between the characters break down, and they become far more aggressive towards each other, slowly reverting back to their childish instincts.

The success of this movie must partly be attributed to the skill of director Roman Polanski. After adapting the phenomenally dull The Ghost a few years back, it appears he's back on form with his latest adaptation (he has, for some reason, had a lack of original ideas of late). While it is true that, yes, the movie is basically a filming of the aforementioned play, it's done so in a style that retains the original atmosphere (to some extent).

However, I believe that the real reason why the movie is such a success is because of the excellent cast; John C. Reilly, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, all of whom are Oscar-nominated and the latter three are Oscar-winning (Jodie Foster has actually won two, the greedy...woman). Reilly is very funny, drawing on his moronic everyman image, and Foster and Winslet are both good – Foster in particular plays against type, with her character acting both needy and vulnerable – but it's Waltz who manages to steal the show as an unpleasant corporate executive who can't stay off the phone. The cast pull off the tricky feat in keeping the audience interested in four very dislikeable people throughout the course of the movie – it's worth saying that, with maybe the exception of Winslet's character (to some extent), we feel no sympathy for these characters.

While the movie is by no means a masterpiece, it's certainly refreshing to see a Hollywood picture with such a sharp script, free of any form of sentimentality of redemption, just focusing on comedy and satire. And for that, I respect it.

★★★½

FEATURE: E.T. Phone Hollywood

Every now and then, I'll be writing a feature centred around a movie that I watched the previous night, and I'll try and get some kind of discussion out of it. Kicking things off is a movie I taped a long time ago, and only just got around to watching; James Cameron's The Abyss.

So if you haven't seen The Abyss, it's a pretty good movie for what it is; a group of oil workers and marines dive deep into the sea to rescue a nuclear submarine, and discover something...else. It's tense, claustrophobic - all of the things which a good underwater movie should be. And, if like me, you have a morbid fear of deep, dark water, then this will certainly provide to be, at best, uncomfortable viewing and, at worst, viewing which makes you curl up into a ball and sob like a little girl (I don't wish to give away spoilers, but there's an agonizing segment dealing with the effects of pressure when descending into the depths of the titular trench).

But there's little point in reviewing a 22-year-old movie. If you've heard if it, then you've probably seen it and read various other reviews, and if you haven't heard of it, then, well, you probably don't care. But I'd like to take this opportunity to take a look at a particular aspect of The Abyss, which was pretty integral to its plot. I am talking, of course about the presence of aliens.

 

Now, aliens have been a part of the industry for a very long time now - dating back to 1902 - but it seems that the quality of these creatures can vary from the brilliant to the flat-out awful, even in today's world of high tech CGI. In this case, James Cameron can do aliens very well (see Avatar), as he makes these kindly extra-terrestrials seem both stunning and haunting, due to the clever use of purple light. Yet in the hands of a lesser director, the movie could have turned out to be far worse. This is why I present my list of the best and worst aliens present in movies.

THE GOOD: Alien (1979)

Might as well start off with one of the all-time classic monsters of 20th Century horror cinema. Created by the very, very strange H. R.Giger, it was the star of the movie Alien, directed by Ridley Scott. The success of the alien, or "xenomorph", wasn't simply due to the design of the monster itself (despite it being magnificent), but due to the expert handling of it by one of the world's greatest directors. Only ever glimpsed throughout most of the movie, Scott managed to create tension by alternating fake scares (a cat jumping out of a locker) with genuine ones (the creature slowly appearing, out of focus), and made one of the scariest and most iconic haunted-house style movies of all time.

THE BAD: Dreamcatcher (2003)

On the other end of the spectrum come the phenomenally awful "shit-weasels" from Dreamcatcher. A horrible concept to being with (you get infected by aliens, this thing grows in your stomach then exits out of your rear end, killing you in the process), this was made worse by surprisingly awful special effects. Not Stephen King's finest moment, and certainly not sci-fi cinema's finest moment. Moving on...

THE GOOD: District 9 (2009)

It's no secret that I love this movie. First-time director Neil Blomkamp used a documentary style when creating this alien-invasion flick, and it works brilliantly. The aliens, already established in South Africa when the movie begins, are rejected by humanity, and confined to a slum known as District 9. These "prawns" (as they have been nicknamed) feel both alien and human at the same time, clearly a different species but one which shares many of the emotions we do. The undercurrent of segregation adds another layer of depth to an already great movie.

THE BAD: Signs (2002)

Now, don't get me wrong, I liked Signs. I thought it was an interesting, tense alien invasion movie, with decent performances from Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. But, unfortunately, the ending let itself down. It was inevitable that the monster would have to be revealed, due to the building tension throughout the movie, and the idea behind it was solid. Yet the special effects were a genuine let down here, portraying it as awkward, cheesy and, simply put, rubbish. What a shame.

THE GOOD: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

How could I not include E.T.? The original (in my opinion) alien was the star of one of the best family movies ever made in the history of motion pictures. This cute little guy bewitched the heart of millions of children (mine included) and adults alike, and still gives me nostalgia when I watch it to this day. In fact, I'm not ashamed to say that this has made me cry on several occasions, both past and present. Don't judge me.

THE BAD: Mac & Me (1988)

And at the other end of the spectrum is this embarrassment. A blatant rip-off of E.T. with absolutely none of the charm, depth, or anything that made it a masterpiece, this is a hollow cash-grab of a movie, with an awful-looking alien. This doesn't even deserve talking about; it represents the worst of cinematic culture and has zero artistic merit. This is making me feel sick just thinking about it. Blargh.

NEWS: Testing the waters

Having extensively worked on my domain name for a very long time, I have finally ventured into the intimidating world of blogging. I welcome you to the tragically unoriginal "Movie Bash" (the best I could come up with with a total lack of imagination), a blog where I review movies and the like, as well as discussing the world’s current movie-related affairs. Don't be surprised if I hypocritically review the odd video game or TV show as well.