Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013)

2013 #75b
Louis D’Esposito | 15 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12

Agent CarterA year after the end of Captain America, love interest Peggy Carter is working a desk job in New York, lacking any respect or acknowledgement from her superiors. But one night, when she’s left alone in the office, a mission comes her way…

Let’s cut to the chase: Agent Carter is easily the best Marvel One-Shot yet. The others have all been fun in their own, but they’re really quite slight and throwaway — if you miss them, never mind. This one, however, takes one of Captain America’s better characters and builds on her further — yes, character development in a 15-minute short. Not only do you get the sense that if Peggy returns in a Marvel feature the events of this short will have had an influence on how we see her, you also feel that anyone who hasn’t seen it will feel the need to go back and seek it out. In fact, this short just proves Agent Carter needs her own feature film. Considering these 15 minutes alone are better than the entirety of Captain America, I fully expect she could sustain it.

As the titular character, Hayley Atwell displays just the right mix of acting ability and action skill to carry such a part. In fact, see also last Christmas’ miniseries Restless, in which she played a similar role. You could even take that as a feature-length Carter adventure, if you wanted. Well, not quite, but close.

Action-packed, funny, character developing, and with some hilarious cameos at the end… You couldn’t ask for much more from a 15 minute superhero-universe short.

4 out of 5

Agent Carter is included on the Iron Man 3 Blu-ray, out now in the UK and from September 24th in the US.

Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 (2012)

2013 #75a
Louis D’Esposito | 11 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12

Item 47Included on the Blu-ray releases of both The Avengers and (unlike Joss Whedon’s commentary or the tip of Loki’s spear) Avengers Assemble, Item 47 is the only of Marvel’s One-Shot shorts to date that’s actually connected to the film it’s released with.* It was greeted with great interest from fans due to its length — after the insanely short first two films, this was of such a length that it mattered; it felt like it was practically its own feature. Perhaps the memory cheats, though, because in reality it’s all of a whopping 11 minutes.

The other, more pertinent, reaction was to its quality: some fans seemed to hate it; nay, despise it. Only in geek/comic book communities could a short bonus feature inspire such vitriol. Personally, I thought it was quite good. I don’t really know what some fans expect from these short films — they’re not very long, so you can’t dig into a complex story, and they don’t have an enormous budget for big-screen spectacle (recently, director/producer Louis D’Esposito answered a question about if they could do a short starring Loki or someone by saying they could do one set in Asgard or with a super-powered character, but it would be about 30 seconds long before the budget was used up).

With that considered, the story is quite solid: after the Battle of New York, an alien gun falls into the hands of young couple Benny (Jesse Bradford, TV’s Guys with Kids) and Claire (Lizzy Caplan, TV’s Masters of Sex). When they use it for nefarious purposes, it attracts the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D., who send in Agent Sitwell (Maximiliano Hernández, TV’s The Americans… and also Thor, Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant, Avengers Assemble, and next year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Lizzy Caplan grips the big weaponThis is exactly the kind of tale I presume the imminent TV series Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be telling. Considering fans seem ultra-hyped for that, I’m not sure why they dislike Item 47 so much; or, alternatively, what they think MAoS will contain that this doesn’t. Well, character development and Agent Coulson, of course — but then your average episode of MAoS will run about five times longer than this short, so (again) what do you expect?!

Item 47 is precisely what I think you should expect from these short films: a fun little bonus tale set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s an entertaining few minutes that aren’t going to change anyone’s world, but are worth a fan’s time.

3 out of 5

* Previously: The Consultant, released on Thor, connects Iron Man to The Incredible Hulk; the lengthily-titled second short, released on Captain America, connects Iron Man 2 to Thor; and the new one, Agent Carter, released on Iron Man 3, is connected to Captain America. Got that? ^

Iron Man 3 (2013)

aka Iron Man Three

2013 #74
Shane Black | 131 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA & China / English | 12 / PG-13

Iron Man 3Some have described Iron Man 3 (or, as the onscreen title would have it, Iron Man Three) as “the best Iron Man yet”, even better than the exalted first movie. Others have described it as “at least better than Iron Man 2”, the derided first sequel. I thought the first one was a tad overrated and the second notably underrated, so where does this trilogy-forming instalment fall on my personal scale? Well, that depends what you want from an Iron Man film…

Following on from the events of Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, Tony Stark is a man with little purpose. The American government have a rebranded War Machine to do their bidding; Pepper is now running Stark Industries; who knows where S.H.I.E.L.D. are (dealing with the plot of Captain America 2, probably). Tony, meanwhile, is creating endless iterations of the Iron Man armour and suffering panic attacks from memories of when the suit failed him during the Battle of New York. For all his usual wisecracking, he’s a man who’s had his confidence undermined — and if there’s one thing Stark’s known for, it’s his self-confidence.

It’s not long before some events happen that push Stark, and his Iron Man alter ego (or is it an alter ego? But I’m getting ahead of myself), back into action. But those panic attacks remain, as does his overwhelming desire to protect his first stable relationship with Pepper. Here, then, is perhaps the film’s strongest element: the development of Tony Stark as a character. It’s not as if the first two films don’t have some degree of character development, but it wasn’t so fundamental. Tony starts Film 1 as a wisecracking show-off partying womanising arms manufacturer, Stuck in the middle with youand ends it as… a wisecracking show-off partying womanising superhero. Film 2 and even The Avengers don’t take him a great deal further, arguably, but here he’s pushed. He still behaves recklessly, because that’s what he’s used to doing, but then the consequences of that recklessness — when he has something he cares about — are brought home. Literally.

Despite outward appearances, the Iron Man movies have always been as much — or more — about the characters and the humour as they have been about action sequences. When you’ve got Robert Downey Jr being hilarious, you want to see more of that than a robot-like superhero punching things. With Shane Black on co-writing and directing duties here (a great choice that pays off), you want to see that as much as ever, and the film keeps it up. So while Stark struggles with the responsibilities of a relationship and with how he’s going to overcome his anxiety problems, he continues to be as snarky and fun to be around as ever. And the film continues to not feature that much in-suit action.

Indeed, for much of the film the suit is out of commission: after the all-out assault on the house you surely saw in the trailer and that I alluded to above, Tony is in hiding, relying more on his own wits and detective skills to piece together just what’s going on. I imagine some people found this to be slow and dull, wanting the punchy-punchy boomy-explodey stuff of every other action movie. But after the sheer scale of The Avengers, Marvel and co are right to find a different tack. You can’t out-do what The Avengers did, and if you try to it would become implausibleIron Man on his lonesome as to why S.H.I.E.L.D. and the super-friends aren’t sticking their noses in, so instead we have a problem on a grand scale, yes, but one for Stark/Iron Man to tackle on his lonesome.

That said, for the sake of the trailer and the adrenaline junkies, it just means the film is rear-loaded with action scenes — three climax-worthy sequences back to back, in fact. It’s a bit of a shame they’re so closely placed, because while each is well-executed individually, they’re also almost immediately overshadowed by what follows. You don’t have time to digest the Air Force One skydiving rescue before it’s off to the oil-rig for the Big Battle. The film takes a break from action by establishing where some characters are and shuffling pieces, sure, but it’s so much set up for the next sequence there’s no time to catch your breath. For me it’s a minor issue, one that will surely be less apparent on future viewings.

And future viewings are merited, because despite all the things that could be ever so depressing, the film has even more to commend it as entertainment. There’s Tony’s relationship with the small-town kid who helps him, for instance, which is suitably irreverent (“dads leave, no need to be a pussy about it”); there’s grace notes like the reluctant henchman (I’m not quoting his one line, it shouldn’t be spoiled); there’s the ’70s action series-style end credits (they brought a huge smile to my face, anyway); and there’s the film’s treatment of the Mandarin…

He's no GandhiAh, the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s big bad; the guy fans have been asking about since before the first film. I don’t know much about him, but I believe in the comics he’s some kind of magician — doesn’t sit well with the film series’ more sci-fi leanings, even after we’ve seen Iron Man meet the likes of Thor. Here, the Mandarin is reconfigured as a terrorist; a very powerful one, spreading his message by taking over US airwaves… and blowing things up as well, naturally. But there’s a twist to him, which I won’t discuss here; beyond to say that, even though I saw it coming (helped, I admit, by everyone saying “there’s a twist to the Mandarin!”), I thought it was quite brilliantly done. Ben Kingsley is magnificent.

It’ll also surprise no one when Stark’s business rival, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be a villain too. Bit of a rehash of the second film there, maybe, but — even though I liked that film — Iron Man 3 handles it better. Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer was perhaps a more memorable character, but Guy Pearce’s Killian fits the plot and themes nicely, and is more of a force to be reckoned with overall. My only disappointment came near the end (slight spoilers for the rest of the paragraph), when it’s revealed in a small aside of a scene that he can breathe fire. Come the big all-action climax and… he doesn’t do it again. Is it a little silly he can breathe fire? Maybe. But it does kinda work with the rest of the things we’ve learnt, and I presume it was a conscious reference to another Iron Man enemy, the giant dragon Fin Fang Foom, who Killian has tattooed on his chest. Even without that tattoo, they’ve established he has a special power, so why doesn’t he use it in the final battle? Surely that’s what it’s made for? Personally, I’d’ve deleted the earlier reference if I wasn’t going to use it at the climax.

Iron Man-lessIn the grand scheme of things, I still think that’s a minor complaint. Indeed, any issues I have with the film are minor complaints, including the slightly elongated first act and the Iron Man-less second one. I think it works for the style the film is aiming at — more of a military-ish spy-ish thriller than a bombastic beat-em-up superhero flick — and that works for me. And, not a complaint, but a minor point: the Actor’s Agent of the Week award goes to whoever represents Stephanie Szostak. I’ve never heard of her and her character’s only really in one sequence, but she’s billed right below the big-name lead cast and above henchman and 24 season three star James Badge Dale, amongst other recognisable names and faces. A Christmas bonus for that representative.

So, is Iron Man 3 the finest Iron Man film? Well, as ever, that’s a matter of perspective. I do think it completes the character’s personal arc, which has flown through not only the first two films but also The Avengers. I’m not the first to note the finalising tone of the film’s final minutes, and I believe the Bondian “Tony Stark will return” at the end is to reassure us he’ll be back in the Avengers sequel rather than imply we should look for an Iron Man 4. Despite marking out release dates through Summer 2017, Marvel have said they won’t be confirming any films of their 2016 or 2017 releases for at least another year. When the time comes, I don’t think an Iron Man sequel will be among them, keeping that particular big gun — and that particular big-name actor — for special occasions. I’m alright with that, because I think we’ve had three highly entertaining movies out of him, and even without an adaptation of the (in)famous Demon in a Bottle arc, I am Iron ManI don’t think there’s much left to do with the character right now. Plus, ending the film with the latest twist on the first movie’s renowned closing declaration is a nice way to round off a series… at least until the inevitable recasting one day.

So back to my question: is it the best Iron Man film? Well, that’s a matter of… oh, wait. Anyway, I refuse to commit. But it might be. It might well be.

4 out of 5

Iron Man 3 is out on DVD & Blu-ray in the UK today, and in the US on September 24th. Ha-ha.

Underdog (2007)

2013 #5
Frederik Du Chau | 74 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | U / PG

UnderdogIn this big screen live-action version of some old US cartoon, a dog gets superpowers and, naturally, becomes a superhero. That’s pretty much it.

The film is widely disliked, it seems, with a very low rating on IMDb; but I thought it was actually good fun. It’s not Citizen Kane, but it’s not trying to be — it’s a kids’ comedy-adventure, and kids will get the most out of it, but it also has enough wit and charm to see it through for some older viewers.

And there’s Peter Dinklage as the raving villain — you know that’s got to be good.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but 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 Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

2013 #44
Marc Webb | 136 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Amazing Spider-ManAndrew Garfield dons the webbed onesie for an unwarranted reboot of the only-one-decade-old Spider-Man film franchise, retelling his origins… but with a twist! Cos, y’know, the last version was only out about 10 minutes ago.

Director Marc Webb’s only previous feature credit is hipster rom-com (500) Days of Summer. Presumably he was chosen, not for his surname, but because half of Amazing is a hipster rom-com. Peter Parker is no longer a socially inept geek, but a mumbling hipster who easily attracts the attention of his longed-for girl (and maybe one or two others) because he’s hipster-cool.

This is just the first of many mistakes. There’s the ditching of the famous “with great power” motto, just Because; and he does grow webbing naturally, as per the controversial decision in the Sam Raimi-helmed trilogy, but now he develops artificial wrist-based web-shooters too, because That’s In The Comic Goddammit; and then there’s some kind of conspiracy backstory with his parents because That’d Be Different.

Essentially, everything is geared towards making sure this isn’t just a rehash of the previous series-starting film, because, as we established, that only happened just a minute ago. In the process, various bits get bungled, rejigged and rearranged to try and convince viewers that you haven’t seen all of this origin story before, when really you have… and done better, too.

The film isn’t without merit. Some of the done-for-real web-swinging is nice; Garfield is good when not affectedly stuttering; love interest Emma Stone is pretty until she opens her mouth; Mask off, as per usualsome of the action sequences are alright. Mercifully, the much-trailed first-person segments are cut down to a minimum; kind of a “we made this so we ought to use it, but we’ve realised everyone was going to hate it”.

But supporting characters get short shrift. Denis Leary doesn’t turn up until halfway through and gets a half-arsed arc that jumps from one end to the other. Rhys Ifans gets off to a good start as sympathetic villain-to-be Dr. Curt Connors, but then his story too is jumped forward when someone clearly realised the running time was running away from them.

Spider-Man’s mask seems to come off every 10 seconds. Attempts at “aren’t New Yorkers all wonderful” patriotism come off as cheesy and literally laughable (the aligned cranes!), whereas in Raimi’s films they kinda felt good even though you knew you should find them horrid. Gone is the humour or colourfulness of those previous films. I know the latter wasn’t to everyone’s taste, but it nailed the intended tone of Spidey much better than this Nolan-inspired grim real-world style.

Someone mentioned Twilight in the run up to release. Disappointingly, they seem to have taken this to heart, focusing on the romance at least as much as the superhero antics. I don’t know how they divide up in terms of screen time, but it feels like the romance received more time and effort from the makers. Superheroes for TwihardsNot that it pays off — instead it just feels like the action scenes were bunged together because, hey, some of the fans want that stuff, right?

Plus, remember how everyone disliked Spider-Man 3 so it did less box office than either of its predecessors? This did even less again. While I’d like to say they’ve listened to fans for the sequel, I think it’s superficial: the suit’s had a major redesign to make it look even more like the comics than either previous version (bigger whiter eyes!), but it will feature at least two, probably three, and possibly four major villains. Such multiplicity was 3’s undoing, and as Webb & co couldn’t find the room to do even one villain properly in this film, I dread to think how they’ll handle several.

The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t a disaster — I’ve given it three stars for a reason — but Raimi got it right in his first two films, and by being different for the sake of it they’ve thrown away a lot of what worked and emphasised many of the things that didn’t. I’m sure there are plenty of single adjectives people would use to describe this iteration of Spider-Man, but “amazing” isn’t one of them.

3 out of 5

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2012 #58
Christopher Nolan | 164 mins | cinema | 2.35:1 | UK & USA / English | 12A / PG-13

The Dark Knight RisesAfter The Dark Knight’s runaway success, this trilogy-closer would inevitably disappoint some. It is imperfect, featuring a story so grandly complex that even the extensive running time fails to give it breathing space, and an occasional leap or fudged point requires audience thinking (which too few are capable of, apparently); but it also has its share of greatness.

It’s undeniably notable for being An Ending — superheroes don’t get endings. There’ll be a reboot, naturally, but no matter: Nolan’s Batman ends.

Whatever the flaws, there’s a rewarding experience here, albeit more comic-book-y than the real-world crime-thriller aspirations of its beloved predecessor.

5 out of 5

The Dark Knight Rises placed 6th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least here’s something for posterity.

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

I have much more I could have said about The Dark Knight Rises, but damn I’m fed up with still having films from 2012 on my to-do list! A fuller piece may well accompany a re-watch in the future. For now, there’s always my initial thoughts.

Green Lantern: Extended Cut (2011)

2012 #53
Martin Campbell | 124 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Green Lantern: Extended Cut“Hype” has to be one of the biggest factors in how we view films these days. Technically it’s defined as “extravagant or intensive publicity”, I suppose thereby meaning something to “positive expectation”, but I think it also works the other way: if you’ve heard nothing but awful things about a film, its weakness has been ‘hyped’. It’s this latter point that applies to Green Lantern, which has an almost insurmountable degree of negative expectation attached. To summarise the headline points, it’s got a woeful rating of 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and took just $220m at the international box office, which might sound a lot but barely covers its production budget. So I expected to despise Green Lantern, or at least roll my eyes or twiddle my thumbs at its constant awfulness, but I actually quite enjoyed it.

And that’s why I talk about hype, because my expectation that the film would be irredeemably awful is at least partly why I found it surprisingly enjoyable — a bit like XMO Wolverine, which I didn’t like nearly as much when I watched it again a few years later. I’m not going to try to argue Green Lantern is a great movie, or even that it doesn’t contain significant flaws, but as a comic book-y two-hour diversion, I found it passably entertaining.

For those not in the know, the plot concerns Hal Jordan (Reynolds) finding a dead alien and a ‘magic’ ring that inducts him into a sort of intergalactic police force, the Green Lanterns. Stupid name and concept, attributable to it being a genuine magic thing before being reinvented as alien tech at some point, and perhaps it was the very daft datedness of the idea that (in part) put a mass audience off. Dead alien's ringBut I digress. Cocky jocky Hal is whisked off to the other side of the galaxy to learn how to be a Hero and use his ‘magic’ ring, which can conjure stuff up, then returns to Earth to save it from some menace(s). As superhero origin stories go, at least it’s got a couple of differences.

Hal’s character arc — the cocky guy who’s actually got fears and insecurities due to the death of his father — is actually quite a good one; a neat twist on the usual hero archetypes. So many superheroes have a version of the “loved one died when I was young” thing, but for most it’s motivation to fight rather than a worry that holds them back. But that arc is underplayed almost to the point of being unnoticeable, so when Hal overcomes it in order to save the day, you barely register that he’s overcome anything. Which is a shame, because there was potential in that. You don’t necessarily expect depth of character from a blockbuster, but it does hold it back.

However, the film’s primary problem (at least for me) was a lack of threat; or, rather, a lack of urgency. There’s a great big devourer of worlds out there, but we never get the feeling it’s doing much harm to anyone. I mean, it is, but we don’t feel it. Even at the climax, when it sets course to Earth, it’s more of an understanding that our hero is going to save the planet, rather than a genuine sense of peril that Earth is under assault. Perhaps this stems back to characterisation: some of the cast are likeable enough; the others are bland enough to not be unlikeable; and that leaves us wanting for someone to root for.

It gets cleverer than thisThere are positives. The action sequences are good, which is a definite plus in this kind of film. The inventiveness with what the ring can do is fun. There’s a lack of relation to the sketchily-drawn characters that stands in the way of us truly engaging with them, and there’s a certain brevity and lack of scale that undersells the alleged threat to Earth (it’s a giant evil space-cloud that can barely cover a few city blocks, let alone the entire planet) — but, that aside, they’re entertaining enough. That said, much as the film pulls its punches with characterisation and threat, so it does with awe and spectacle. The Lanterns’ planet Oa doesn’t have the same impact as Asgard in Thor, yet we’re told several times what a spectacular place it is.

The Blu-ray’s Extended Cut adds exactly 9 minutes and 39 seconds of new content (as ever, details can be found here). This is almost entirely a prelude sequence, showing the death of Hal Jordan’s dad. The sequence serves to flesh out the relationships between Hal, love interest Carol and future-villain Hector a little, but there’s not a lot gained that isn’t learnt elsewhere. It also breaks up the flow. I only watched the extended version in full, but I imagine it’s a smoother transition in the theatrical, rather than pinging back and forth between intergalactic goings-on and bits & bobs on Earth. The only other extension comes when Hal has a chat with his 11-year-old nephew. Conversely, this scene plays much better in the extended cut, and I’m not entirely sure why they felt the need to cut it.

Damp squibIndeed, I’d say the Extended Cut doesn’t go far enough, with some of the disc’s deleted scenes meriting inclusion. However, the main one occurs on Oa, meaning an effects-heavy scene that hasn’t had CG work done or all the voices recorded, so couldn’t just be dropped back into the finished film as-is. I imagine that’s why it wasn’t. That said, even if they’d done such work, those scenes are minor points, not game-changers.

What an extended cut of Green Lantern should really have done is build character and emotional impact. The plot is decent enough, but the film rattles along and sticks purely to story — we never feel it. It is nice to have a blockbuster effects movie that comes in closer to two hours than three, but they used to be able to make those and have us care. Where’s that ability gone? The only relationship that gets any real screen time is the romantic one, and that’s a damp squib.

I quite enjoyed Green Lantern while watching it. I felt quite positive afterwards. But the more you think about it, the more you spot the lack of depth. Maybe that’s OK — maybe it’s fine for a film to just give passing pleasure while it’s on. It wouldn’t be good if every film operated at that level, but it’s a painless experience now and then. Bye bye Green LanternStill, I think there’s a better film lurking in Green Lantern, and it’s a shame it didn’t get the screenwriter(s) or director(s) required to bring it out. It’s even more of a shame that worse films than this have received a kinder critical consensus or huge box office. That leaves some suit feeling vindicated and churning out the same rubbish again, whereas with a bit more effort Green Lantern 2 could’ve been worthwhile.

3 out of 5

April 2013 + 5 Worst Superhero Movies

Yes yes yes, it’s May, it’s the summer, it’s exciting. But before all that, let’s take a little peek at how 100 Films’ seventh year fared in April…


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

It was bound to happen eventually: I didn’t see a WDYMYHS film this month. It just never panned out, especially over the last few days. The aim is to watch one in the early days of May to make up for it, and then of course another later.

So moving on:


April’s films

Ted#38a Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: Extended Version (2001/2004)
#39 The Last Boy Scout (1991)
#40 Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, aka 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
#40a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Extended Version (2002/2005)Harry Potter x4
#41 The Dinosaur Project (2012)
#42 Ted (2012)
#42a Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
#43 Man on a Ledge (2012)
#43a Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)


Analysis

A slow month this one, as you can see, though with five brand-new films watched (alongside four already-seen Harry Potters), it’s far from my worst ever. And that’s with the first week given over to Game of Thrones season two, too. And it’s not even my worst April: 2010 only had three films. Plus, ending at 43, I’m marginally ahead of this time in 2010 and 2012, only a little behind 2007 and 2011, and at double (or more) where I was in 2008 and 2009. Also, as April is precisely one-third through the year, the target number is 33, and I’m well ahead of that.

As you may have guessed, I’ve mounted a re-watch of the Harry Potter series, one every Sunday. This was started almost on a whim, but rather neatly I’ll be watching one on every Sunday in April and May (if it continues to plan). As I’ve never reviewed the first four, I’ll be covering them with full-ish reviews (the first two definitely count as extended cuts anyway, and those pieces are already up — see above); and for the sake of completeness, I’ll attempt some kind of overview on the final four too.


5 Worst Superhero Movies

Inspired by Fantastic Four 2… which then wasn’t that bad so didn’t make its own list. There are too many awful alternatives.

I was going to go with “comic book movies”, but then you really have to broaden the remit. I imagine the results are more or less the same anyway. As ever, there’s the caveat that I haven’t seen loads of films, so these are the worst I’ve seen (so no Catwoman, The Spirit, never-released Fantastic Four, etc).

  1. Superhero Movie
    Superhero MovieYou might have expected Batman & Robin to top this list. It would be a fair choice. But, believe it or not, it actually has some redeeming features. Not many, but some. This woefully unimaginative spoof has none whatsoever. I’m not even sure it had any laughs. OK, it might not be a ‘real’ superhero movie… but then again, look at the title. It counts.
  2. Batman & Robin
    Batman and RobinThese days, it’s difficult to imagine Hollywood managing to kill off a franchise they didn’t want to. Even those which are consistently a bit rubbish. I imagine this is where they learnt their lesson, turning a reliable cash cow into a despised monstrosity. How the genre got back on its feet just a few years later (and grew stronger than ever) is a minor miracle.
  3. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
    The League of Extraordinary GentlemenI really wanted to like this — a great concept, based on a great comic, with great people involved in the film — and on its release, I convinced myself I did. But it’s a bit of a mess really, isn’t it; and the needs of being a PG-13 blockbuster wrecked a lot of the comic’s best ideas. Shame. (It has left me always abbreviating the comic’s title as LXG too, though.)
  4. The Punisher (1989)
    The PunisherI don’t actually know that much about the Punisher, but I don’t believe this is a very good rendition of the comic (where’s the skull emblem?!). And even if it is, it isn’t a very good film. I’ve largely wiped it from my memory, but I recall it being the twin sins of boring and amateurishly made. The two ’00s movies starring the character didn’t go down well, but I can’t imagine they’re worse.
  5. Elektra
    ElektraA lot of people didn’t like Daredevil. I did. It has flaws, certainly, but it got a lot right. Nonetheless, I had no particular hopes for this spin-off featuring a fan-favourite character who had been mediocrely rendered on screen first time out (and not recast). Low expectations were good, because it’s a mess that doesn’t deliver in any notable respect.

And one I do like…

    Mystery Men
    Mystery MenThere are many great superhero movies, but this is an undervalued one. Coming in the genre’s quiet period, between the death of the Batman franchise and the rebirth afforded by X-Men, I think this all-star comedy would fare better today. That said, I’ve not seen it for years, and sometimes comedy dates badly, so maybe I should’ve re-watched before putting it here… But I definitely did love it.

There are plenty more films that deserve a place on this list — what should I have made room for?


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

Can I post more reviews?!

Can I watch two WDYMYHS films?!

Can I reach the month’s aim: #41?!

…which I’ve already passed. Tension, deflated.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

2012 #57
Eric Radomski & Bruce W. Timm | 76 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

Batman: Mask of the PhantasmBatman movies have a habit of provoking strong reactions. The Dark Knight is popularly regarded as one of the greatest films of all time (settled at #7 on IMDb’s Top 25); Batman & Robin is widely reviled as one of if not the worst of all time; the Adam West movie and Batman Returns have long been wildly divisive, and it looks like The Dark Knight Rises has now joined their ranks.

And then there’s Mask of the Phantasm. Relatively little seen (it made under $6 million at the US box office on release and has never been particularly well served on DVD, though I understand it’s sold well), it’s acclaimed by those that have caught it — including critics — as perhaps the greatest Batman film of them all. Some even say it was the best animated film of 1993, and that’s the year of The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas — a bold claim indeed.

Oh yes, that’s right — it’s animated. And right there we have an explanation for its lack of wide-spread appreciation.

Spun off from fan-favourite TV series Batman: The Animated Series, this feature-length version sees Batman remembering events from early in his career while tracking down a murderous vigilante, the titular Phantasm.

Batman no more?One of the main reasons the film succeeds is that look back at Bruce Wayne’s early days as a crime fighter. Batman’s origin is oft told — too oft, truth be told — but they thankfully don’t rehash it here. Instead, early in Batman’s career Bruce falls in love and finds happiness, causing him to question whether to continue down the path he’s already dedicated his life to. The scene where he talks to his parents’ grave, expressing his guilt at potentially finding happiness after so much mourning, is one of the most powerful, emotional moments in all of Batman’s many iterations.

But it’s not all navel-gazing. There’s more than enough action to satiate the young and young-minded, including a spectacular explosive finale set in a rundown theme park. It’s just another of the film’s many triumphs; another reason it deserves to be better known and better respected.

Many sensible, genuinely grown-up people will happily espouse that animation is not solely a kids’ medium, as Western attitudes have wound up painting it. It’s a battle far from won: despite the attention now afforded anime, companies that handle its Western distribution still struggle, and I think it’s seen by many as the preserve of ‘alternative’ teenagers and manchilds. Mask of the Phantasm is far from being an adults-only experience, instead treading that line often taken by US animation nowadays (particularly Pixar) of having plenty for the kids alongside more thematically and emotionally mature sensibilities. The titular maskBut instead of falling in some nasty halfway-house, Phantasm turns up trumps on all fronts.

I think we have to accept that it’s never going to gain the mass appreciation of Nolan’s Bat-films, or even Tim Burton’s; but for those in the know, Mask of the Phantasm is a gem in the history of Batman on screen. Indeed, it may even be the best Batman film of all.

5 out of 5

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm placed 4th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

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.