Avengers Assemble (2012)

aka The Avengers / Marvel’s The Avengers / Marvel Avengers Assemble / Marvel’s Avengers Assemble

2012 #78
Joss Whedon | 143 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Avengers Assemble

I don’t think it’s a perfect movie. I don’t even think it’s a great movie. I think it’s a great time.

So says Joss Whedon, writer/director/creator of the generation-defining Buffy the Vampire Slayer, its spin-off Angel, the inimitable Firefly, its incredible movie send-off Serenity, the ground-breaking Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and, y’know, Dollhouse (which I’ve not seen). In short, I love the work of Mr Whedon. And, more relevantly, he’s also the writer/director of the film that represented the culmination of Marvel’s uber-successful Phase One cinematic experiment: the disappointing Avengers Assemble.

Yeah, I said “disappointing”.

Let’s tackle the big looming issue head-on: hype. Something can only be disappointing if you’re expecting something of it, and the big screen adaptation of Marvel’s long-running superhero team-up comic The Avengers certainly had more than its fair share of that. Built with subtle (and not so subtle) snippets of information through five preceding Marvel Studios films, this crossover had been teased for years, and it was a radically new method of franchise-building to boot. Mix in that most of these films and characters were very popular, and the fan-pleasing appointment of Mr Whedon, and you had a recipe for hype. In spite of this potentially damaging level of expectation, critics largely loved it, and audiences too (though there were dissenting voices — genre magazine SFX only awarded it 3.5 stars), and it outpaced everyone’s expectations to become the third highest grossing film of all time (it took more than Iron Man, Thor and Captain America combined).

Captain Iron and America ManComing to it for the first time on Blu-ray, then, there’s an even bigger level of expectation attached. Iron Man had much the same problem five years ago, and I felt that had been overrated too. I don’t think either are bad films — I very much enjoyed Iron Man, and I enjoyed The Avengers, albeit more intermittently — but I don’t think either are as good as mass opinion holds.

The problem here is bringing together so many different characters from so many different films. If anyone can do it it’s Whedon, master of the ensemble cast in just about every one of his previous projects, but even he produces a leaden first act in which we’re re-introduced to everyone and they’re gradually brought together. This is the film’s worst segment — it’s a slow 20 to 30 minutes during which pieces are shuffled into place for what follows.

Even when it picks up, the plot’s scaffolding is on show: bits feel engineered merely to set up certain one-on-one face offs (Whedon makes sure nearly every hero has such a scene with Loki, for instance), or even to keep certain characters out of the way until the plot requires them again. People talk of the fantastic dialogue, but I found the odd good line in a sea of functional chatter. Maybe it plays better in a packed cinema. The action sequences are a similar affair, though they manage to have their cake and eat it with hero-on-hero duels at first meeting before united-heroes-vs-baddies later on. However, there are some bits that played well in the trailers which, in the film, feel like they were parachuted in to play well in the trailers. As the (excellent) Honest Trailer points out, however, one key mid-film sequence is all about the exciting event of… Iron Man repairing a ship. Woo.

This ship.

Despite the relatively moderate success of the non-Iron Man previous Marvel films, this largely draws its story from their sources. Boring old Captain America is the de facto lead, though of course Tony Stark steals the scene from him on numerous occasions — those worried the film would be seen as Iron Man and His Super-Friends weren’t wholly wrong (indeed, that’s virtually how the Radio Times describe it in their 22-word summary).

But, even more so, Whedon’s chosen villain and plot make this pretty much Thor 2. The evil so bad it has to bring all the heroes together is Loki, last seen falling to his doom at the end of Thor (well, if you watch the post-credits scenes he was doing something else, but as far as Thor’s concerned, he’s gone). His motivation, only passingly mentioned (so much so that some missed it and claim he’s destroying Earth “just because”), is born out of the events of Thor; as is world-shattering MacGuffin the Tesseract (again, it was first mentioned inHammer Time Thor’s post-credits scenelet); plus numerous events from that film are mentioned and discussed, I’d say more so than any of the other four preceding films (scenes that would have more specifically related to the events of Captain America were cut for time and pace — yes, believe it or not, some stuff was left out).

I don’t know how the film plays for total newbies — there must have been some in the audience, considering how much more the film made than its predecessors — but I think that in many respects you need to have seen all the previous films. You certainly need to know who Iron Man is and who Tony Stark is; the allusions to Steve Rogers’ past, and so why his character is the way he is, are all there; and, as discussed, Thor has the most bearing on the plot. Perhaps you could follow it without having seen any of them, but I’m willing to bet you’d be very aware you were missing backstory.

Looking ahead for a moment to Marvel’s forthcoming Phase Two (a series of sequels and one new film leading up to The Avengers 2), they’ve talked about keeping the individual characters’ movies standalone, so that each works as its own series. I can see how Iron Man 3 will be just fine (though even that will be building off his psychological reaction to the events of Avengers’ climax), as would a (second) Hulk reboot (besides, it doesn’t need to continue at all if it’s a reboot). Heck, even Cap might get away with it — having deleted the “coping with the modern world” stuff here, why not use it in Cap 2? And we can tell from the title that the main plot will derive from events in Cap 1. But The Avengers completely blusters on from the end of Thor, Puny Godmeaning Thor 2 is going to have to begin somewhere after what happened here, with very specific ramifications for its characters. Maybe they’ve got some damnably clever way around that. I doubt they think it matters any more anyway — who hasn’t seen The Avengers? And in the future, well, it’s up to the viewer to piece together which order all the disparate sequels and spin-offs go in.

And on matters of “screw later viewers!”… Technically I should probably subtitle this The Blu-ray Cut or something, for two reasons. 1) The Shwarma Scene, a short post-credits scenelette that was included on Marvel’s The Avengers but wasn’t ready in time for Marvel Avengers Assemble’s week-earlier theatrical release. It’s back now. 2) The Spear Tip, which there’s every chance you’ve heard about: fans complaining it’s gone missing on the DVD/BD; the BBFC investigating if Disney breached the Video Recordings Act; then discovering it was (sort of) their own fault for (sort of) not spotting the change; Disney saying it was never even there in cinemas (which the BBFC disagree with)… Sadly, the end result was Disney had done nothing illegal. It might’ve been nice if they’d been forced to do a recall and repress, because then they’d have had no excuse to not include the director’s commentary (missing from the UK release because it was recorded late and some idiot thought hitting an earlier date was preferable to including all the special features), but I don’t imagine that was ever really likely to happen.

I haven't discussed Maria Hill either, but here's a pretty pictureAnd the glaringly obvious thing I haven’t discussed is the title. Firstly, as you can see from all my akas at the top, no one can quite agree on what it’s meant to be. Secondly, there’s the highly contentious UK renaming. Did it need it? Patronised-feeling film and comic fans say “no”; but those aware of general public perception say that, either anecdotally or through research, normal Brits did report confusion with the classic ’60s spy series (and, presumably, the lamentable ’90s movie). Funnily enough, I think the new title actually works better in context. “What do we do now?” calls Agent Coulson. “Avengers Assemble,” comes the title card’s response. Well, it kinda works. And even then, what does it matter, really? Those people who went as far as importing a foreign DVD or Blu-ray just for the original title card need to get some perspective in their life. (If you did it for Whedon’s commentary, however, I completely understand. I saved money and pirated it (the commentary, not the whole film), which feels morally pleasing.)

I realise I’ve spent much of this review discussing the pre-release hype, what this means for the future of the franchise, and how they ballsed up the home entertainment release. That those are the elements most concerning me perhaps says something about my reaction to the film. And I haven’t even mentioned the distracting way the heroes all talk to each other without earpieces during the final battle, or Jeremy Renner’s comments about his disappointment at the treatment of Hawkeye (he has every right to be peeved), or the predictable inevitably over who gets killed off (of course someone gets killed off, that’s one of Whedon’s trademarks), or the resultant outcry from some parts of fandom, or even bits that were quite good.

You'll like him more when he's angryAmusingly, one of the few bits even those in implacable love with the film sometimes criticise is Banner’s “I’m always angry” moment, which I thought was an awesome perspective on the character. It’s not just convenience either — it was put it in for a specific reason. I’ve lost the quote, but it’s something to do with how Whedon always feels somewhat angry at various things. I could identify.

Avengers Assemble left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. After all the hype and excitement, I just didn’t enjoy it that much. I tried, but it seemed slow to get anywhere, the dialogue didn’t zing as promised, some of the story seemed perfunctory and lacking requisite grandeur, there were little niggles like the earpieces… Perhaps it will fare better on repeat viewings, because there’s certainly entertainment contained within, and I’ll be divorced from such insurmountably high levels of expectation. But until then… disappointing.

4 out of 5

Avengers Assemble premieres on Sky Movies today at 4pm and 8pm, continuing for the next fortnight.

It merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Thor (2011)

2012 #37
Kenneth Branagh | 115 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

ThorDirector Kenneth Branagh brings all his Shakespearean know-how to one of the most innately successful of Marvel’s recent superhero movies. Perhaps lacking the mass appeal of Iron Man (specifically, of Downey Jr), Branagh spins a yarn of gods and mortals, humility and responsibility, without stinting on action or humour.

In the title role, Chris Hemsworth is an instant star; as his evil brother, Tom Hiddleston also seems to be commencing a considerable career. Too much building to The Avengers is its only major flaw. I had no interest in Thor before; now I’m desperate to read some of the comics.

4 out of 5

Marvel Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers, comes to Sky Movies Premiere from Friday 15th February at 4pm.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

My reviews of the other Marvel Phase One movies can be found at the following links: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger; plus, the first two Marvel One-Shot shorts.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

2012 #2
David Yates | 130 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2After a decade on screen, the fantasy series comes to an action-packed conclusion. Adapting the final novel’s second half, it’s mostly finale, to both the seventh tale and entire series. The climactic Battle of Hogwarts takes up much of the film. A glut of combat and cameos, most surviving characters return. Many get their moment to shine, with particular gratification from Matthew Lewis’ Neville, Julie Walters’ Mrs Weasley, and Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall. Not flawless, with major deaths off screen and a Potter / Voldemort showdown less stirring than the novel’s, but exciting and grand enough for a fitting send-off.

4 out of 5

See also my overview of the Harry Potter films of David Yates.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010)

aka Les aventures extraordinaires d’Adèle Blanc-Sec

2013 #9
Luc Besson | 107 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | France / French | 12

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-SecBased on the long-running bande dessinée (aka “comics”) by Jacques Tardi, The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec is occasionally sold to English audiences with a handy quote from Empire: “Amélie meets Indiana Jones”. I’ve never seen Amélie (though, funnily enough, I ordered the Blu-ray in a sale last week), but I still think that’s a pretty fair summing up.

Adapted from two of Tardi’s tales (the first and fourth, fact-fans), Adèle Blanc-Sec is set in 1912 Paris, and concerns the titular adventuress’ quest to resurrect an Egyptian mummy who may be capable of healing her sister, while also having to deal with an escaped pterodactyl. Pretty instantly you can see this isn’t what we Brits typically think of as A French Film… that said, the often farcical tone allies itself with another preconception about the French, so that’s OK.

Indeed, this lightness — fairer to say silliness — might alienate some viewers hoping for more Indiana Jones and less Amélie. There’s a sequence in Egypt that’s very much in the Indy mould, and much of the stuff with the pterodactyl too, but it’s always underscored and surrounded with humour. Caricatures and exaggerations abound. Gratuitous nudity - gratudityAnd if that doesn’t put you off, the introduction-heavy opening minutes might, dense with introductions for disconnected characters and locations. Stick with it, it sorts itself out.

The film finds itself with a 12 certificate in the UK, and that age might be the perfect target audience. There’s dinosaurs and mummies, car chases and fireballs, derring do brushing up against irreverent humour, and even some boobies. Hurrah for the Frenchies’ casual attitude to nudity — its appearance here is in every possible way gratuitous, and yet with a snippet of plot information that means you couldn’t snip it out without creating an obvious jump. It’s only these fleeting nipples that prompt the film to be higher than a simple PG (the BBFC’s explanation is here), though there’s a mildly harsh edge to some of the action too. Should a man being guillotined be funny? Well, it is here.

Star Louise Bourgoin is/was a model, which you can believe from her looks but wouldn’t know from her performance. Her Adèle is quick-witted and funny, terse but likeable, and she’s prepared to don all sorts of daft and occasionally unflattering disguises in service of both story and laughs. An able supporting cast includes Bond villain Mathieu Amalric, unrecognisable under heavy prosthetics, who is unfortunately underused. Some reports say this was planned as a trilogy (whether the sequels are still in the works, I know not), so perhaps he was being established for that purpose.

Silly sheepDirector Luc Besson managed to build up something of a following with a regular output of films through the ’80s and ’90s, perhaps culminating artistically with the exceptional Leon, which he followed with US-styled (but French-produced) sci-fi epic The Fifth Element and an ill-received re-telling of the story of Joan of Arc. For much of the ’00s he moved further behind the scenes, writing and producing a flurry of mainstream-flavoured Euro-produced crossover hits — film series such as District 13, Taken, Taxi, The Transporter, and more can all be attributed to him. Adèle Blanc-Sec isn’t his first time back in the director’s chair since the ’90s, but while there’s nothing wrong with its production, nothing suggests Besson in particular needed to be calling the shots either. Maybe someone more intimately familiar with his previous work would see something I didn’t, but though it’s all competently handled, there’s nothing to remind you this is a man who once helmed some truly great films.

The music is by Éric Serra, who murdered the score for GoldenEye with some electronic modern rubbish instead of the classic John Barry-inspired style David Arnold brought for Tomorrow Never Dies through Quantum of Solace (and, one hopes, he’ll bring to Bond 24, after Thomas Newman’s bland and self-copying effort on Skyfall). Serra has clearly spent the intervening 15 years learning how to copy, however, as there’s a distinct John Williams flavour to the music. I’m not objecting — this is an Indiana Jones-esque tale and Indiana Jones-esque music fits like a glove.

Oh mummyI suppose Adèle Blanc-Sec won’t be to everyone’s tastes. Comparisons to the Stephen Sommers Mummy have been made, but its tone is sillier still than that and not everyone approved then. That’s before we get on to its occasionally scrappy nature, including a slightly overlong third act. But that’s piffle I say, because in the right frame of mind it’s all rollicking good fun. I sincerely hope those mooted sequels happen.

4 out of 5

The UK TV premiere of The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec is on Film4 and Film4 HD tomorrow, Friday 1st February, at 9pm.

It placed 10th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Special (2006)

2012 #40
Hal Haberman & Jeremy Passmore | 78 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

SpecialA lot of praise was slung Kick-Ass’ way for being the first superhero movie genuinely set in the real world, showing the actual problems someone might face if they tried to fight crime behind a mask and a cape. But it wasn’t the first film to hit such a vein, just the most high profile.

One of the forerunners was this, in which a bored man signs on to a drug trial that, it turns out, gives him special powers — levitation, running through walls, etc. Or does it?

If you’re looking for comparisons, Special is more in line with Super than Kick-Ass. It doesn’t quite have James Gunn’s crazy surreal touch, but it shares the low-budget realist aesthetic and a surprisingly recognisable cast (albeit with smaller, TV-er faces here).

One might also argue it’s not strictly a superhero movie per se, more a comedy-drama about a man with mental health problems… though it’s less bleak or inappropriate than that might sound. That doesn’t mean it’s devoid of action or special effects, but they emerge largely in the third act and mostly serve a different purpose to the norm. Or, to put it another way, this isn’t as much of a sci-fi/fantasy film as you might expect.

That IS specialThose after a more genre-aware “real world superhero” movie would do better to stick with Kick-Ass or Super, but those who might embrace something a little different — especially something with an indie sensibility — would do well to take a look. Indeed, being a comic fan is certainly not a prerequisite for enjoyment here.

4 out of 5

Room on the Broom (2012)

2012 #94a
Jan Lachauer & Max Lang | 25 mins | TV (HD) | 16:9 | UK / English | U

Room on the BroomFrom the makers of the successful Christmas TV shorts The Gruffalo and The Gruffalo’s Child comes another adaptation of a children’s book by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler.

This one concerns a witch, her broom, and all the creatures that want to ride on it. It’s a simple story with simple rhyme for little kids, of course, but that’s where its joy lies. Pre-schoolers are treated to far better poetry (because, ultimately, that’s what it is) than the dreary stuff us adults are meant to engage with. Along the way there’s moral lessons and whatnot too, which even if you can see coming, are freshly presented.

The animation retains the claymation-esque style employed for the previous two films, and consequently looks just as good. The creatures are all imbued with acres of character, mainly thanks to the animators — there’s an all-star voice cast, but as each has about two lines to deliver (literally, with the exception of the narrator), it’s in their actions and reactions that most of the character comes through, and consequently that most of the story is told. For what it’s worth, voice work is provided by Simon Pegg (narrating) with Gillian Anderson, Rob Brydon, Timothy Spall, Martin Clunes, Sally Hawkins and David Walliams.

Those seeking adult-aimed sophistication must look elsewhere, but for a family audience — or anyone who’s a bit of a child at heart — I think this is charming fare, more or less the equal of any short film Pixar has to offer. If these adaptations are to become a regular Christmas Day treat, you’ll hear no complaints from me.

5 out of 5

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

2012 #41
Marcus Nispel | 113 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Conan the BarbarianConan was created by Robert E. Howard in 1932, but is probably best known to most thanks to the Schwarzenegger-starring 1982 film, which was successful enough to provoke a sequel in 1984. Having never read any of the stories or watched either of those films, that’s about where my knowledge of the character ends — except for this recent attempt at a remake/reboot/whatever “re”-prefixed word you want to use this week.

Here, at least, Conan starts out as a young boy in a village of warriors, who are then massacred by the villainous villain in his quest for some MacGuffin. Naturally our young hero is the only survivor and I imagine at that point he swore vengeance, so he goes off and grows up to become someone with more muscles than acting chops (played by Jason Momoa, previously seen as a non-English-speaking muscleman in Game of Thrones) and somehow or other gets on the trail of the villain.

If my poor description sounds like the film doesn’t make sense, that’s a tad unfair, because it is followable… I just didn’t really care at any point. The plot kind of pings about through some disconnected set pieces, few of them particularly inspiring with the exception of one featuring ninja-types who are formed out of sand. Whether the story is faithful to Howard or a reinvention I don’t know, but either he’s been heavily borrowed from down the years Conan the Muscleor the filmmakers ignored his work in favour of familiar bits and bobs from other sources. Visually it’s just as non-inventive, which is what you get when you hire the director of a middling Frankenstein TV movie, two horror remakes, and Pathfinder.

This new version of Conan isn’t a dreadful movie per se, it’s just sort of uninspiring. I didn’t hate it, I just don’t care to particularly remember it, and even when I do I’m not 100% sure if all the things I remember are even from this film. There’s now talk that the next attempt to use the character will be an Arnie-starring sequel to the first film, skipping both the original sequel and this version. Perhaps that’s for the best, for both the franchise’s financiers and fans.

2 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Fantastic Four (2005)

2012 #77
Tim Story | 106 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | Germany & USA / English | PG / PG-13

Fantastic FourIn the wake of highly successful franchise launches for X-Men and Spider-Man, the next Marvel superheroes to be afforded the big-screen treatment were the Fantastic Four, a kind of family imbued with superpowers after a space accident. “Kind of family” translated to “family movie” for Fox executives, and they produced this dross.

“Family movie” does not automatically equal bad superhero film. Indeed, The Incredibles is one of the sub-genre’s best offerings. I don’t know much about the Fantastic Four comics, but it strikes me that Pixar more successfully hit the tone and style that the makers of this film were aiming for.

The problem I felt is that this incarnation of the FF doesn’t really have a story. They kind of meander through a few things that Happen, then a villain finally emerges and they defeat him. It leaves the film bereft of narrative drive; a series of scenes strung together without a common goal. When those scenes are populated with middling acting, unengaging characters, lacklustre humour, stalled drama, and both practical and computer-generated special effects that look about twice as old as the film is, then the experience you’re left with isn’t entertaining on almost any level.

An interesting footnote about this film is the list of weird, minor regional differences, which don’t bear repeating but are at that link if you’re interested. It also received a surely-unasked-for extended cut on DVD in the US, Fantastic spatswhich included completely different (longer) opening credits; both promenade & planetarium scenes from the regional variations; and mostly new character scenes, as if the film didn’t have enough of those already, or plot extensions that help make more sense of stuff that, actually, more-or-less scanned OK anyway. I can’t imagine anyone wanting an even longer version of this, but it takes all sorts, eh.

They’re re-booting Fantastic Four soon (an unusual summer-season-dodging Spring 2015 release date was recently announced) and I wish them well — the characters have run in comics for over 50 years; there must be something to them. Hopefully those in charge can learn from this film’s mistakes, and the successes of family-friendly efforts like The Incredibles, and give us something so good we can forget this ’00s incarnation ever happened.

2 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Drive Angry (2011)

2012 #39
Patrick Lussier | 104 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 18 / R

Drive AngryNic Cage does the Taken thing with added CGI and supernatural posturing in this grindhouse-y actioner from the director of such inspiring films as The Prophecy 3, Dracula 2001 and the My Bloody Valentine remake.

The grindhouse style works for it. It’s got a crazy plot, crazy action, gratuitous violence, gratuitous nudity, rough production values, variable acting, loopy bad guys — the highlight is definitely the latter, with William Fichtner channelling Christopher Walken. The whole thing could do with being punchier and pacier, and shorter, but the out-there action, some bits of dialogue, and Fichtner make it almost worthwhile. None of it is especially memorable, but while it lasts it’s appreciably trashy.

That said, the sex scene fight is a steal from Shoot ‘Em Up, and not a very good steal. Slow-mo saps it of all tension or excitement. Other action scenes fare better, but by no means all of them. Edited by the director and his brother, I think they need to learn some new tricks to punch these scenes up a bit. It gets better as the film goes on and they have crazier material, but some of the early stuff is remarkably pedestrian.

The film’s promotion made a big point of being shot in 3D (instead of the usual style of “Drive Angry 3D”, the posters call it “Drive Angry Shot in 3D”), but most of the in-your-face “look it’s 3D!” stuff is CGI anyway. So would it benefit from being seen in 3D? The best thing in the filmOnly in that stuff flies at the camera and whatnot. You can indeed tell it was made for 3D, but that doesn’t mean it needs it. Indeed, the poke-the-audience stuff aside, none of it suggests it would look great in 3D — for all the pointlessness of cinema’s new money-spinning format, it can add something to the vistas in a film like Avatar. Drive Angry has nothing vaguely on that level.

These days your big blockbusters won’t get you change from $200m, so at $50m Drive Angry is a cheapy – which at least explains some of its low-rent looks. But it’s not that cheap, and the CGI is appalling. Some of it was of the level I’d expect from a direct-to-DVD mockbuster, and those are made for closer to $50 than $50m. In spite of the low cost, it did spectacularly badly at the box office. Even though it sold itself as “Starring Film Star Nicolas Cage” and “look there’s action!” and “look there’s a sexy girl!” (these are the three main things you get from the poster, and I imagine the trailers also), it opened a paltry 9th at the US box office and took just $28.9m… worldwide. Total. That’s only about 60% of its budget. Its poor performance makes it “the lowest-grossing opening of a 3D film released in over 2,000 US theatres”. Unlike some low-budget flops (Dredd 3D, I’m looking at you), this commercial failure doesn’t really bother me.

This is what happens when you drive angrilyAs noted, director Lussier does not have an inspiring CV: he started with numerous straight-to-video sequels, then a big screen sequel-no-one-wanted (even with Nathan Fillion in it) in White Noise: The Light, before what I guess must’ve been a modicum of success with My Bloody Valentine, which I seem to remember a (relatively) big fuss being made about because it was one of the first live-action things in true 3D or somesuch. Perhaps the massive flopping of Drive Angry will kill his career back off — his next project is apparently re-make threequel Halloween III, which I don’t imagine anyone anywhere is eagerly anticipating.

Drive Angry isn’t completely without merit, but it’s the kind of film where you have to hunt for the good stuff among the dross. Even as brain-off actioners go, you can do better.

2 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Call of Cthulhu (2005)

2012 #89
Andrew Leman | 47 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English

The Call of CthulhuI must admit to not being at all familiar with the work of H.P. Lovecraft. I know the name, of course, and the titles of some of his stories, not to mention being aware of the array of well-known fans. Aside from that, I’ve only encountered his work through its influence — there’s some stuff in the Hellboy films, for instance, or the Lovecraft/Wodehouse mash-up in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier. This is my first experience of the undiluted thing, however.

This is an adaptation of a short story first published in 1928, which led its makers to the inspired idea of filming it as if it had been made at the time — in short, as a silent film. This lends an instant… not charm, exactly, but sort of ingenuity. There are a couple of cheats that wouldn’t have been available to 1920s filmmakers, but all are modern low-budget equivalents of something they would have achieved a different way.

And low budget it certainly is. Depending on your point of view, it’s either a fan film or a micro-budget indie. If may lack a final level of polish to qualify for the latter — it was shot on video and it shows (though less so in black & white than in colour, interestingly) — but, if the former, it’s a very slick example; much more professionally executed than Browncoats: Redemption, say.

The Call of ModelsThe marriage of low-budget and silent film style is one made in heaven, particularly when you add in the dedication of the makers. They built impressive props, ingenious sets, and employed model work in various inventive ways, all to execute a story that includes a cultist swamp orgy, a mysterious island, a sea battle, and a skyscraper-sized monster. Some online reviews have criticised the effects, but those people are quite frankly idiots. This isn’t meant to be slick CGI — it’s re-creating lo-fi early film techniques, and (aside from one or two rough-round-the-edges spots of greenscreen) it all looks fabulous.

I would go on, but one of my chief pleasures in the film was the surprises of the effects work, so I don’t want to spoil it for you. The making-of on the DVD is certainly worth a watch (it’s also better made than some I’ve seen on professional films), and I’ll add that a particular favourite of mine is the methods they used to create the highly atmospheric bayou sequence. The model set is incredible!

It’s easy to get distracted by the production when its makers have worked such wonders with next-to-no budget, but there’s also solid storytelling going on here. The Call of the BayouI have no idea how closely it hews to Lovecraft’s original, but there’s a layered stories-within-stories approach (I think it gets four deep at one point) that is difficult to pull off with clarity, but never falters here. Christopher Nolan would be proud. It also effectively builds a sense of uncanny mystery; not outright scares, but a kind of disquieting unease. It’s my impression that was absolutely Lovecraft’s aim too, so another job well done.

It’s fair to say The Call of Cthulhu isn’t a film for everyone, but then often the best ones aren’t. As well as Lovecraft enthusiasts, fans of silent film and creepy (as opposed to jumpy or gory) horror should definitely give it a go. It’s only 50 minutes of your life, and you might have the same reaction as me: I’m now eager to read Lovecraft’s actual work, and have just received the Blu-ray of the filmmakers’ follow-up, a ’30s-Universal-horror-styled take on another Lovecraft tale. Inspiring such a desire for more is surely always a sign of a good film.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.