Suing the Devil (2011, Timothy Chey)

I remember as a child, when I was in primary school, I was once asked by a friend whether or not I believed in God. I told him I did not, but I could see that my answer bothered him. For ten minutes or so he squirmed in his chair and kept making annoyed faces until, finally, he blurted out, "Do you believe in the Devil?" By this point, this friend of mine was really getting on my nerves, so in an attempt to please him, and to get him to shut up, I said, "Sure, why not." My youthful, naive mind thought that if I played along, even for a short while, he would be happy. He was not, and for the rest of the day he kept making cross signs at me and calling me a devil worshiper. I have not thought about that day for roughly twelve years, but when I sat down to see Tim Chey's Suing the Devil, memories of that day, and the irritation it brought on, came flooding back.

The plot of Suing the Devil centres on a young man named Luke O'Brien (Bart Bronson), a devout Christian having "the worst year of his life". His mother has been killed by a drunk driver, his girlfriend has a mysterious cough (which in cinema terms means she has a deadly disease) and, according to him, everything good in the world has turned rotten. This can only mean one thing, that the Devil is to blame, and the only way to fix all the world's problems is to sue him for eight trillion dollars. Expecting to be laughed out of the courthouse, O'Brien, as well as the judge, are both shocked to see none other than Satan (Malcolm McDowell) himself traipse through the courthouse doors to accept O'Brien's challenge. What started out as a simpering little twerp blaming all of his problems on a mythical beast turns into the (and I am quoting the film's tagline here) "the trial of the century".

As you may have noticed from my transparent, condescending tone, I am being sarcastic. This is, quite frankly, one of the worst films in Malcolm McDowell's questionable career. This is the kind of movie that would go down in bad movie legend, if it was not for the devoted cult of Christian right-wing fans who keep insisting that this is an inspiring masterpiece. Perhaps the most insulting aspect of the film is that it pigeonholes people into boxes of "good and evil" based on their faith alone. For example, Satan's team of high priced lawyers all share a hatred of God and would have no problem selling their souls to make a quick buck, so we know they are evil. Also, when O'Brien inexplicably puts an oil executive on the stand, he proceeds to chastise him for being an atheist and a capitalist; as if either fact has anything to do with this man's qualities as a human being. Then there is Satan himself, who, among other things, takes credit for gangster rap, which just goes to show how primitive and dangerous this film's ideas are. As if hip-hop music is evil simply by being aggressive and coarse, which of course, it is not.

The honest truth is, there is nothing wrong with religion in the media. Johnny Cash, for example, in his lifetime was one of the most sincere, honest musicians working, and it just so happens that he was a devout Christian. Martin Scorsese, one of the greatest living filmmakers, often uses themes of Catholicism in his films. However, both Cash and Scorsese live(d) in the real world, and are, or were, aware of the fact that simply being a Christian does not make a person good or bad. Simply put, a lot of the greatest art in the world, from the Renaissance era to the modern day, has been influenced by Christian teachings, yet each piece of work has been made with talent. That talent, however, is not inherited through belief, but is instead inspired by it. One cannot simply put a camera in the hand of an incompetent filmmaker and expect a masterpiece, simply because of his belief.

Although, what burdens the film most is the staggering lack of focus. Is O'Brien suing the devil for all of the world's problems, or just his problems? It flips between doing both, with some scenes referencing the great flood and others referencing Satan's punishment of Job. One was an incident in the Bible that affected the whole world, the other was a personal incident. If O'Brien is looking simply for self gratification, then Satan's case against him is hardly airtight. As each of Satan's lawyers question O'Brien, all they can determine is that he once made a racist remark, once cursed God, and watched internet pornography before he met his girlfriend. Concrete character assassination there, guys! Although, to be fair, perhaps these scenes would have been more interesting if either the actors playing the lawyers, or Bart Bronson as O'Brien could actually act. Instead they simply alternate between whispering and shouting their lines. Also, the script is no better, lurching awkwardly between drama and comedy.

What is perhaps most disheartening about the film is that the premise is a good one, and that there are infinite possibilities that one could do with Satan in a courthouse setting. For example, The Devil's Advocate did just that, making Satan the head of a law firm, and was a fairly successful film. However, it wont work if filmmaker's keep making film's such as this, with a condescending, almighty tone. Unfortunately, it is Malcolm McDowell who comes across as the worst, despite being the most competent actor, because he truly deserves better than this. My patience with Malcolm McDowell is beginning to wear thin, and if he does not stop agreeing to star in, and produce, schlock like this, I may have to terminate any good will I have towards him.

In conclusion, any enjoyment you may have watching this will only be on an ironic level, and not on any level that the Tim Chey intends. Malcolm McDowell is wasted and one wishes he will find better work in the next few years or so, but it is doubtful considering his output of late. If you are not the kind of person who enjoys watching bad movies simply to laugh at them, then please avoid this patronising mess. Avoid this like hell (sorry, I could not resist).

2/10

Bubba Ho-tep (2002, Don Coscarelli)

Stop me if you have heard this one before. Elvis Presley and John F. Kennedy, who is an elderly black man, did not die and are spending their twilight years in a retirement home in Texas. Given a setup like that, it sounds like the beginning of a great joke, or at the very least, a crackpot conspiracy theory. However, this is exactly the premise for Bubba Ho-Tep, and it only gets stranger from here. Based on the short story by Joe R. Lansdale, Bubba Ho-Tep tells the "true" story of Elvis' (Bruce Campbell) last years, living in a retirement home in East Texas with an abnormal growth on his penis which he is sure is cancerous.  According to this film's version of Elvis, he swapped lives with an Elvis impersonator named Sebastian (also Campbell), who promptly died on the toilet, leaving the real King to wither away into anonymity. After Sebastian died, the real Elvis spent the next twenty years of his life playing Sebastian playing Elvis on stage, until an accident caused him to fall of stage and break his hip. To add to the King's misfortune, the accident caused the hip to become infected, and he is now bed ridden with no motivation to "take care of business". His one friend in the home is "Jack," (Ossie Davis) a possibly senile black man who claims to be John F. Kennedy. When an evil, egyptian mummy starts sucking the souls of the rest home's residents, it is up to JFK and Elvis to conjure the spirits of their former, rebellious selves to save their rest home, and save the souls of its inhabitants.

What is perhaps most surprising about Bubba Ho-tep, is just how touchingly melancholic it is. If one can accept early on that the whole thing is a metaphor for ageing, then one will find oneself being pleasantly swept away. Director Don Coscarelli knows that when you take two icons such as JFK and Elvis Presley, who were known trouble makers in their youth, and show them as tired, cranky and ineffectual, we can project a lot of our fears about ageing onto them. When they both decide to fight back against evil, it works, because when you get right down to it, we get to see two people who are thought of as an inconvenience struggling for one last chance at relevance. This is also true for the cancerous lump on Elvis' genitals. It may be an excuse for Coscarelli to get in a few wink-wink, nudge-nudge knob gags, but it is also a hurdle for the character to overcome which makes their struggle all the more resonant. Think, for example, of C.C. Baxter's cold in The Apartment, or John McClaine's cut up, bloody feet in Die Hard, both are used to make us cheer harder when the heroes do eventually triumph.

Unfortunately, while Bubba Ho-tep is a soaring success on a subtextual level, it is not quite as successful as a horror movie or as a comedy. Firstly, the creature design on the mummy, while fairly imaginative, looks creaky. It is named "Bubba Ho-tep" because it is a cross between an ancient, Egyptian mummy, and a redneck from the South of America ("Bubba" being slang for "good ol' boy"). So the design of the creature has some nice, Western additions, such as a cowboy hat and boots with spurs. However, these imaginative touches cannot paper over what looks like a man dressed up in an ill-fitting mummy costume, and all fear or tension disappears once we see him. One wonders how effective the mummy would have been if they had not shown him so early on in the film, and he was just spoken about like the shark in Jaws, who is only ever seen in the last-third of the film. 

It is more successful as a comedy, as Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis have an easy going chemistry, bouncing wry one-liners off one another with grace. Surprisingly, it is Davis who turns out to be the funnier of the two, which is nice to see as he is better known as a dramatic actor. Campbell is funny too, but he is the one who carries the bulk of the more dramatic moments. Unlike Davis, Campbell is mostly known for his work as a comedic actor, so it is nice to see him play against type here. Regrettably, while it is fine as a comedy, and okay as a horror movie, it is a shame that neither the comedy nor the horror comes across quite as well as the drama.

Director, Don Coscarelli is no stranger to cult cinema, as it is he who directed the Phantasm franchise, and he works hard to make the more cult pleasing moments work with the more melancholic moments. One would think that Elvis trying to karate kick an evil mummy would work in a film which talks maturely about the fear of age as concept; well, one would be wrong. Credit must also go to director-of-photography, Adam Janeiro, who gives the film a fairly warm, sunny look. One imagines that it is his work behind the camera that managed to make the extremely low budget not be too apparent. Although, despite everyone's best efforts, it always looks a little cheap, and had they managed to raise just another million dollars or so, they could have improved the horror element of the film.

I feel it would be remiss of me not to reiterate just how good Ossie Davis and Bruce Campbell are in their roles. Firstly, they both have to take very broad caricatures of people who are iconic and, therefore, well known and give them a surprising amount of depth. Secondly, both of them are well known as cult actors, and often in academic criticism, actors such as these are underrated or looked down upon. So it is nice to see them do such good work here. As most of you will know, Ossie Davis became best known in the late eighties and early nineties for being a regular in Spike Lee's movies, and Campbell is forever immortalised for playing Ash in The Evil Dead franchise. Due to typecasting both Davis and Campbell seemed unable to escape from B-movie hell, so in a way, they share a similar plight to Bubba Ho-tep's Elvis and JFK, in that they are making one last stab for greatness. 

Thankfully, Bubba Ho-tep has become a minor cult classic since the time of its DVD release, meaning that people are still enjoying the film to this day. I hope that when new viewers find the film, they enjoy the subtler subtext to the movie, and not just the gags about Elvis' penis.

6/10

Bringing Out the Dead (1999, Martin Scorsese)

When watching Martin Scorsese's shock to the senses which is, Bringing Out the Dead, one realises that somewhere along the way the traditional "beginning-middle-end"  story structuring has been completely disregarded. It is a sensory experience before it is a film, and it attempts to strike you with its sounds, sights and (imagined) smells before trying to entertain you; which is perfectly fine if you allow yourself to go along with it. 

Our story (or should that be "series of events") follows paramedic, Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage), a Manhattan medic working the graveyard shift in a two man ambulance team. Sleep deprived, Frank wishes to be sent home to sleep, as his burnt-out mind causes him to see ghosts roaming the streets. One ghost that persists in returning is Rosie, a homeless woman he failed to save six months previously. Over the course of three nights, we see him with three different partners, who each bring with them a rush of adrenaline to an already high-strung film. Firstly, there is Larry (John Goodman), who is with Frank when he meets Mary (Patricia Arquette), the daughter of a heart-attack victim whom Frank will later befriend. Frank's second partner is Marcus (Ving Rhames), a Jesus-loving nuisance who enjoys attempting to flirt over the radio with the woman manning the dispatch desk. Lastly, there is Tom (Tom Sizemore), a psychotic paramedic who is excited by the thought of beating drug-addict, Noel (Marc Antony) to death with a baseball bat.

If that synopsis sounds episodic and difficult to digest, it is because it is. At best, one could describe the narrative as being manic-depressive, which is fitting giving the protagonist's state of mind. For long stretches, mostly during the scenes in the ambulance, it rushes and pulses; then it lulls and becomes sluggish. While I imagine that is the desired effect, as Frank and his series of partners must be alert and ready when they are on the job, it is disorientating for the viewer. That is not to suggest that it does not work, or that the absences of form causes the film to drag, it does mean that it is difficult to ease into as a coherent narrative. It is impossible to really care for Frank, or any of the situations in the film, as they go from zero miles-an-hour, to one-hundred and twenty in a millisecond. There is no way to readjust or get comfortable, so the best one can do is to attempt to enjoy the speed for as long as it lasts. It is perhaps most comparable to a roller coaster, which temporarily slows down before it ramps up the speed. It is breathtaking for its duration, but hard to connect to it on an emotional level.

Based on Joe Connelly's novel of the same name, Bringing Out the Dead is adapted for the screen by Paul Schrader, a frequent collaborator of Scorsese's. Before this was released in 1999, their previous collaboration was The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988, and it is surprising to see just how similar the two films are. Bringing Out the Dead, has a lingering motif of guilt and its consequences running throughout, especially given how Frank reacts to the people he cannot save. He allows each person whom he loses to haunt him, and imagines that those he could not save are ghosts. If you had not guessed already, Frank is a metaphor for Jesus, who wears the weight of the world on his shoulders. It is particularly obvious in his scenes with Mary (his Mary Magdalene), an ex-drug addict who falls off the wagon when her father is taken ill. Frank rescues her on several occasions (cleansing her of her seven sins), even going so far as to drag her out of a drug dealers apartment, and as a reward, he is allowed to sleep in her apartment. She absolves him of guilt, which allows him to go back to work with a clear conscience. While this is very interesting, Frank never really comes across as more than a metaphor, and he never comes across like a real human being.

As previously mentioned, the film works best when it is at its fastest, as Martin Scorsese's depiction of New York is quite hellish. Firstly, it is set in the early 90s, during the peak of the AIDS epidemic, which makes for a fairly interesting subtext and allows the action to be crowded with gaunt, dying faces. This lends an authority to the ambulance scenes, as Frank and his partners seem suitably swamped. Secondly, Scorsese allows his production team to get really low-down and dirty when shooting New York. There are no stereotypical shots of The Empire State Building here and Scorsese directs with all the speed and energy of a cocaine addict, not allowing the pace to drop for a second during these scenes. 

Unfortunately, the performances are something of a mixed bag, ranging from decent to fairly amateurish. If there is one thing that Nicolas Cage can do as an actor, it is that he can play high-strung characters, which works very well here. Cage has always been somewhat of an anomaly as actor, in the sense that he simply does not seem like a member of the human race. His movements and speech patterns are so eccentric and bizarre that he comes across more like an extra terrestrial life form which simply chose to mimic humans; although it is just that bizarre energy which makes his performance work. Out of Frank's three partners, Cage has a particularly decent chemistry with Ving Rhames as Marcus, who brings a self knowing, broad wit to his performance, which works well in the lighter scenes. Regrettably, Patricia Arquette comes across as a little flat, sounding as if she is reading her lines off cue cards. This is a shame, as I think that most of the time she is a pretty remarkable talent. Although, she is done no favours by the script, which leaves her character a little underwritten. 

In conclusion, did I enjoy the film? Absolutely I did. From the moment it began to the moment it ended I was gripped. However, did I think the film was great? Frankly, no, I did not. It is such a moody, grubby piece of work that it keeps you at an arm's length throughout. Its subject matter and execution, while breathtaking and entertaining, are what keep you from truly allowing the film to connect with you. Instead, you are bombarded with images and sounds that eventually the only thing you can connect to is the shallower elements of the film. It is certainly worth a rent, and only becomes more entertaining on a rematch, but it is by no stretch a masterpiece.

7/10

Southern Comfort (1981, Walter Hill)

Sometimes, two films are released with such similar plots and structure that it is hard not to compare the two. For example, Deep Impact was released in the same year as Armageddon, and since the latter was released first, it is the former that looked derivative. Unfortunately, the case with Southern Comfort is that Deliverance was released first, and is the better film. Despite the fact that, other than having similar settings and a similar plot structure, the two films are nothing alike. In fact, the tagline for Southern Comfort was, "Not Since Deliverance…"  Which just goes to show that the film's marketers were as aware as the public.

The film is set in 1973, and a squad of undisciplined members of the Louisiana Army National Guard are meeting in the Bayou's swamps for weekend manoeuvres. Corporal Hardin (Powers Boothe) has transferred from the Texas National Guard, and within moments of arriving he finds he is disgusted with the behaviour and arrogance of his new squad. Nevertheless, he befriends PFC Spencer (Keith Carradine), who seems to be the only level headed member of the group, other than Hardin. In the swamp, the squad decides to steal several pirogues (cajun canoes), and as one may imagine, this does not please the local gun-totin' Cajun swamp dwellers. However, the nail in the coffin is when PFC Stuckey (Lewis Smith) fires blanks from his M60 machine gun at the Cajuns as a prank. The threatened Cajuns fire back, killing the squad leader. Now, the unprepared group of National Guardsmen must fend for themselves in the unfamiliar terrain, as they are hunted for their sport.

According to the director, Walter Hill, this is not a metaphor for Vietnam. He reportedly told his cast before filming began that, "People are going to say this is about Vietnam. They can say whatever they want, but I don't want to hear another word about it." Although, it is not hard to see it as such, especially when considering that the plot revolves around a group of poorly trained young men fighting in a terrain in which they are unfamiliar. Regardless of whether the parallels to Vietnam are intentional or not, this is an excellent survival horror movie.

Firstly, Walter Hill understands genre cinema. He is credited as either a producer or executive-producer on all four movies in the Alien franchise, and he has directed anything from buddy-comedy cop movies (48 Hours/Another 48 Hours) to Westerns  (the pilot episode of Deadwood). If there is anyone who can direct a movie such as this, it is Hill. He can direct tension to perfection, and he understands that survival horror relies on the fragility of its characters, and how the unknown situation eventually causes a few of them to breakdown. Although, some credit has to go to the cast, especially Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine as the two leads,  like Hill, they have a good history with genre cinema, often lending a gruff gravitas to what many considered "B-movies". They are the kind of character actors that seemed to be everywhere in the late seventies and early eighties, and then seemed to vanish into obscurity. One wonders whether it was Hill's influence as an executive producer and director of HBO's seminal Western, Deadwood, that got Boothe and Carradine such juicy parts on the show?

Although, as good as Hill's direction is, the real star here is the music by Ry Cooder and the swamp of Louisiana itself. Director of photography Andrew Laszlo films the swamp in such a menacing fashion, with each zoom and pan making the swamp look thicker. It creates a fantastic sense of dread among the audience, as one starts to question every little thing they see. Ry Cooder's use of steel guitar is also used to great effect, creating an atmosphere which is so thick, one could cut it off the screen with a knife. 

Perhaps the only downside to the film is that it will be forever associated with Deliverance, which unfortunately has led some to believe that it is merely being derivative. While, I must admit, that Deliverance is the superior movie, Southern Comfort is still an extremely successful genre film. It is arguable that Southern Comfort is more successful at keeping a consistent tone throughout the movie, as even when two of our heroes look as though they will be rescued, the tone is still kept incredibly tense. If I had one wish for this movie, it would be that it finds an unbiased audience who can judge it for its own merits, and see it for the tense thriller that it is. Admittedly, the film has picked up a cult following, but I hope in that in the future more people will buy the DVD and give it a second life in home theatres.

7/10

Vamp - 1986 - Richard Wenk

It probably is not a good sign for a film if, while watching it, you are reminded of other, better films. And yet, that was exactly what happened when I sat down to watch Richard Wenk's terribly dated vampire film, Vamp. For example, the plot is eerily similar to Robert Rodriguez' homage to vampire films of the 1980s, From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), and aesthetically, Vamp's style and camera work seem derivative of other, better horror films. In the former case, it is understandable that From Dusk Till Dawn's story and structure feels similar to Vamp's, as Robert Rodriguez is deliberately picking things from cheesy vampire films from the 1980s and mocking them. I would not be surprised if I heard that he did pinch story elements from Vamp, especially since both films feature a Queen Vampire who strips to lure her prey.

So, what is the story of Vamp, I hear you ask? Well, it concerns two college students, Keith (Chris Makepeace) and AJ (Robert Rusler), who want to hire a stripper for their fraternity initiation party. Unfortunately, Keith and AJ have no car, so they manage to convince Duncan (Gedde Watanabe), a college loner with no friends, to loan them his car. However, he insists that as compensation, they must pretend to be his friends for a week and take him with them. So, the three of them travel to the seediest club in the neighbourhood, the After Dark Nightclub, in search for a suitable candidate. It is there where they meet the lead vampire, Queen Katrina (Grace Jones), and realise that everyone there, including the staff and strippers, are ruthless bloodsuckers out to feast on all those who enter through the strip club doors.

I imagine several of you are drawing parallels between the two films, if only if it is because both films use a strip club and erotic dancers to attract their prey. However, while Vamp seems to still be able to inspire filmmakers to this day, I do believe that, in terms of its appearance, it owes a debt to Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977). I would go as far to say that Vamp is derivative to the point where the filmmakers cannot claim this is just an "inspiration". Cinematographers Elliott Davis and Douglas F. O'Neons bathe the screen with a neon green and pink look, which is suitable considering the seedy nightclub is the main set piece of the film. However, Suspiria had this exact same style, albeit in blue and red, and in all honesty, Dario Argento used it far more effectively.

Below are two stills from Suspira, and below that are two stills from Vamp.

I should say that the photography is well accomplished, and photographers Douglas F. O'Neons and Elliott Davis went on to have lucrative careers in Hollywood. I do not blame them, or director Richard Wenk, for being derivative. They were starting out in their filmmaking careers and they wanted to give their film a distinct look, which is understandable. It is no different to Martin Scorsese using a lot of red in his films' photography because Michael Powell used a lot of red. I just feel that it is distracting to the point where I could not concentrate on the film.

If I seem to be talking about Vamp only in superficial terms, such as what it inspired and how it looks, it is because there is nothing remotely interesting about the film other than what it inspired and how it looks. It is a terribly dated piece of work, in both its attitudes to women and its costumes. For example, the fact that every female character is a stripper, and a ferocious she-beast at that, is simply insulting. This is spookily similar to contemporary horror films from England, Doghouse and Lesbian Vampire Killers, where all the monsters are women who are sexually provocative. Whichever way you look at it, the filmmakers seem to be judging these women for the fact that they are strippers. In feminist terms this is referred to as "slut-shaming", and this film reeks of it. Surely, if Richard Wenk wanted to be progressive, he would make AJ and Keith the vampires, as their attempt to hire a woman to strip for their fraternity brothers is more akin to bloodsucking than the woman stripping. The fact that AJ and Keith look like they could be members of Huey Lewis and the News and that the lead antagonist is played by Grace Jones makes it a time capsule to the mid-1980s. 

 Despite this, the film's greatest sin is that it is boring; sleep enduringly boring. As a horror, it is not scary, despite a few jump scares, and as a comedy it is not funny, other than a couple of mild chuckles towards the beginning. In terms of the acting, the majority of the cast are simply dull, however there are a two notably awful performances; namely Gedde Watanabe as Duncan and Grace Jones as Queen Katrina. Most people will remember Gedde Watanabe as Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles (1984), perhaps the most annoying character in teen movie history and certainly the most racially insensitive. While he is slightly less grating here, he is still utterly awful. Grace Jones, however, seems embarrassed to be showing up in this turkey. She does not have a single line of dialogue in the film, and one imagines she must have requested this, much like Maila "Vampira" Nurmi in Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959), in a vein attempt for people not to associate her with this film. 

However, given its budget was merely one point nine million dollars, it never looks cheap, and the grotesquely monstrous vampire effects look excellent. Also, going back to the photography, many of the shots look as if they should have cost a lot of money to pull off. The fact that they did not cost that much, and they were able to accomplish those shots for such little money is very impressive.

4/10

The Avengers - 2012 - Joss Whedon

To give a little history behind how The Avengers came to be, one has to go back a few years to the release of Iron Man in 2008. After the end credits of the first Iron Man movie, there is a scene where Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), the director of a governmental peacekeeping organisation called S.H.I.E.L.D, confronts Tony "Iron Man" Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) about putting together a group of superheroes, called "The Avengers Initiative". So, between 2008 and 2011, several superhero films based on Marvel Comics have hinted at the upcoming film of The Avengers and which superheroes will play a part in the final picture. So, films such as The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2011) and Captain America (2011) introduced us to Bruce Banner and his alter ego, the green, 10-foot rage monster, The Hulk, Steve "Captain America" Rogers and Norse Demigod, Thor; all of whom would become heroes in The Avengers. 

With a history as long and drawn out as that, it is good that the plot is fairly simple for a franchise starter. When villainous Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who was banished from his home world of Asgard at the end of Thor, launches an attack on Earth, it is up to S.H.I.E.L.D director Nick Fury to reassemble his ragtag team of superheroes to save the world. Amongst the super-people picked are Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Iron Man, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo, replacing The Incredible Hulk's Edward Norton), whose constant self-loathing keeps the monster within from emerging at an inopportune time.

It should be noted that the main motivation behind the inception of this movie is to milk any last drop of profit out of each of these respective heroes' franchises as possible. However, there is nothing wrong with making a movie intended to make money if it is well handled, which is especially tricky when there is no star to shoulder the responsibilities of a leading man. It is to director Joss Whedon's credit that it is pulled off so well, taking the various threads that made each hero work in their own films and teasing out something witty and charming about each of them. It could have easily centred on Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man, as he is the most famous actor in the film, and plays the most popular character in the group. Thankfully, Whedon is a talented filmmaker and his history as a writer-producer-director for television gives him a good eye for raising particular characters and actors just enough to let that particular performer shine, without letting their presence overwhelm the story. Think for example of Firefly, or its feature-length spin-off Serenty, both of which had a large ensemble cast which Whedon managed to pull off with wit and energy. 

 Whedon's deft direction and wittily written script and the unselfish ensemble acting do much to bring their characters to life. Each playing their character with all the charm and charisma that they brought to their own films, the only difference being that they now must do so as a supporting-player, as there is no singular lead in the picture. Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers earnestly, with a touch of the "noble war hero" that he had in Captain America. Chris Hemsworth plays Thor with all the swagger he had in Thor, except now he has a greater emotional weight as it is he who banished Loki and made him thirsty for revenge. Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark is just as dry and witty as we remember him, and he gets some great interplay with the overly sincere Captain America, who takes offence to Tony Stark's sarcasm and seeming lack of interest in the fate of the world. 

However, the standout, for me, was Mark Ruffalo. In many ways, he has the most difficult task out of the four lead heroes. Firstly, he is the only cast member who has not played the character before, as he was a last minute replacement for Edward Norton. Secondly, whereas Norton played Bruce Banner as a desperate man looking for a cure, Ruffalo plays Banner as a man filled with self-loathing and a grudging realisation that he is in constant danger of turning into a beast. If his anger were to tip-over, he would turn at any point, meaning he has become immune to things which would try the patience of most people, such as being teased or prodded. It is a very subtle performance, and it is arguably the best representation of this character yet, which I believe has been mishandled in his previous incarnations. It is especially impressive as Ruffalo performed not only Banner's scenes, but Hulk's scenes, with the help of a motion-capture suite and some state of the art CGI technology. 

Perhaps the best thing about The Avengers is its pace, as it did not feel overlong, even with a two hours and twenty minutes running time. Instead, it seems to zip along, giving each character a fair share of one-liners and character moments. It also creates the giddy, childlike feeling of reading a new comic book, or watching a new episode of a Saturday morning cartoon. It is bright and charming, instead of artificially dark and brooding, which seems to be the way that the majority of comic book adaptations are going these days. That is to say, whereas Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, earned their adult content, many comic book adaptations, like 2009's Watchmen, felt like they were dark simply for the sake of it. Of course, there are adult themes in The Avengers, but they are handled in such a way that a child of 11 or 12 could understand them just as well as the parent accompanying them. On that note, much of the colouring and brightness can attributed to director-of-photography Seamus McGarvey, production designer James Chinlund and the many art directors and members of the visual effects team, who are far too numerous mention by name. I believe it is down to them that the climactic battle seemed, for the most part, exciting and fresh, and not like the same old dull battle scenes we have seen countless times in Michael Bay's Transformers franchise.

However, it is not all good. Most of the plot revolved around a source of energy called The Tesseract, which is a cube shaped objected of seemingly unlimited power. When it is activated, it opens a portal through space, which Loki, and later Loki's army, enter. This, as most people may have figured out, is a MacGuffin, which was a term popularised by Alfred Hitchcock to describe an item which everyone is chasing; and it is not a very good MacGuffin at that. Compare this to, for example, the statue of the falcon in The Maltese Falcon (1941), and you will see how much this pales by comparison. On top of that, I felt that Tom Hiddelston's Loki was fairly limp as a villain, and his CGI army of aliens were pretty indistinguishable and lacked characterisation. I realise that the first film in a franchise, which traditionally has the most easily defeatable baddies, but I really felt that Loki being pummelled into the ground by The Hulk was a fairly weak comeuppance, as hilarious as that scene was. Concerning the heroes, I never felt that Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye or Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow were particularly impressive, in fact they were largely forgettable. This is partly due to the script not giving them enough to do, but mostly, I feel, they were slightly miscast. Although, Johansson did show that she could be more impressive in future instalments, as she was particularly impressive when recruiting The Hulk or interrogating Loki by using reverse psychology. She owned those scenes with intelligence and grace.

Granted, these are  minor of imperfections, and for the most part these could be improved upon in future instalments, they were just a little bit distracting. Also, fans of character actors may get a kick out of seeing cameo appearances by Powers Boothe, Harry Dean Stanton and Jenny Agutter; I know I did. I will say that, ultimately, it did not live up to the hype put upon this super-hero mashup, and newcomers to the franchise may be a little lost, but it is an entertaining summer blockbuster which manages to achieves the majority of its objectives. It is a good piece of action entertainment, but little more, and in the end, that is all it is intended to be.

8/10

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut - 1999 - Trey Parker

It is hard for me to talk about South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, the feature length spin-off to the TV show, South Park, without speaking about the impact that both the show and the film had on me; at least in terms of the development of my taste and sense of humour. As a child, in primary school, I remember going into class and hearing my classmates talk about South Park and being jealous that I had yet to see it. When I was finally allowed to watch it, however, the whole world changed, and suddenly I understood how one could make swearing into an art form. It has also been the show, other than The Simpsons, which has followed me from childhood until adulthood, being there at every stage of my development. South Park is currently in its 16th seasons and shows no signs of stopping. When the film came out in 1999, the show was only two years old, and many parents around the world, especially in America, thought that it was corrupting their youth (along with Beavis and Butthead and Eminem). At this point, it had not yet earned its reputation as a satirical show, which it would in later seasons.

In many ways, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was the point where South Park became satirical and tackled subjects larger than itself. So, what was there better to tackle than censorship on TV and film? Especially given all that South Park the show had been accused of, in terms of its effects on children. The story begins with South Park's four heroes, Kyle, Kenny, Stan and Cartman, who are on their way to see Terrence and Philip: Asses of Fire, the feature length spin-off to the Canadian TV show, Terrance and Phillip, which the boys adore. Their plan hits a snag, however, when they find out the movie has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for its foul language. Luckily, they manage to trick their way into the screening, and when they emerge roughly two hours later, they are swearing a blue streak for all the world to hear. This does not go down well at their school or home, and soon America's youth in its entirety has seen the film, and are all cursing like sailors. Eventually, the mothers of the four lead boys have had enough and start an anti-Canadian propaganda campaign, which eventually leads to Terrance and Philip being arrested in the United States for "corruption of youth" and are set to be executed forthwith. Soon, this scuffle between Canada and America leads to all out warfare, akin to trench combat of the First World War.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the show, who, along with Pam Brady,  have written a script which, on the surface, seems xenophobic, racist and homophobic, yet they are not being malicious; they are simply trying to see how many people they can offend before the offended realise that they have fallen into their trap. Despite the seemingly offensive material, nothing even resembling offence comes from the film. Instead, they are placing a mirror up to the audience who, before long, realise they are less like the idealistic young boys, and more like the outraged mothers who are ready to go to war over naughty language. Trey Parker directs with the same style that Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would construct a comedy bit during their stand-up routines, by lacing their foul-mouthed material with pin sharp satire. It becomes especially apparent that Parker, Stone and Brady are trying to annoy audiences to elicit a reaction when Satan, the overlord of hell itself, is made to be a sympathetic character, and in a gay relationship with Sadam Hussain. Not only were far-right Christians annoyed at its representation of Satan, but the film was banned in Iraq for its portrayal of Saddam Hussein. 

Although, it must be said, that Parker, Stone and Brady would not present these stereotypes, such as xenophobia, anti-semitism or racism if they actually believed in them. They are subversive to the point where they do not care if other people find the material in the film to be offensive. If the movie seems different in terms of structure to the show, it is because they are using more of a laser guided precision on the targets they are taking down, whereas the show is more scattershot and sporadic. However, if this tautness does lead to any problems, it is that some supporting characters who are more present in the show, such as Chef (Isaac Hayes), are not in much of the film.

However, it is not as if Matt Stone and Trey Parker are just being provocative for the sake of being provocative, and it also is not as if they are simply trying to make a satirical movie which annoys a lot of people. First and foremost, this is a comedy, and on top of that, a comedy-musical, and it excels in both formats. Firstly, the songs are excellent, often parodying the likes of Disney's Beauty and the Beast or West End plays such as Les Misérables. It helps that Trey Parker, who wrote the music alongside Marc Shaiman, is a self-confessed musical theatre buff and studied music at the University of Colorado. Secondly, the humour is wonderfully filthy and it is delivered at a whip-crack pace. If one were to leave the room in the middle of the film, one would find themselves lost upon their return. Although, that is at least to be expected when the running time is a sparse 82-minutes in length, and in that time we go from seeing four boys watching a film to the outbreak of the Third-World War.

Unfortunately, the great irony is that the MPAA imposed several cuts upon the film, otherwise they would have released it with an NC-17 rating, which would have severely sliced the film's audience. Eventually Parker and Stone cut out several scenes, and the MPAA allowed the film to be rated R. On that note, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut would make a fascinating double feature with Kirby Dick's documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), as both films dissect the MPAA's nannying of audiences and conservative bias against sex and foul language. As Sheila Brofloski, Kyle's mother, states towards the end of the film. "Horrific deplorable violence is okay, so long as nobody says any naughty words. That is what this war is all about."

In terms of voice work, it is as good as the show, which is high praise indeed. Trey Parker and Matt Stone tackle their respective characters with as much gusto as they did in the show, and they give life to several new characters with the same energy. This is also one of the last opportunities to hear the voice work of the late Mary Kay Bergman, who voiced most of the female characters on the show, as she sadly committed suicide not long after the release of the film. One complaint in terms of the voice department would be the celebrity voice-overs, such as George Clooney and Eric Idle, who seem like they are hamming their roles up, causing their scenes to be jarring. There is also an unforgivable lack of Isaac Hayes as Chef, which is especially surprising considering that this is a musical, a seemingly perfect opportunity for Hayes. Although he does have a great running gag about a clitoris.

In conclusion, this is a very smart satire, which uses its profanity as one of its greatest weapons for weeding out hypocrites. It is well paced, and the humour is strong throughout. If there are any niggles, they are only small ones, such as the lack of Isaac Hayes. Overall, an excellent film and a highpoint in the South Park canon.

8/10