Super (2010)

What is less well-known is the second "average guy becomes a costumed hero, with plenty of graphic violence, swearing, and an adorable, if psychotic, female sidekick" movie that came out in 2010 - one with less than a tenth of the budget of Kick-Ass and around half of the restraint. There's a slight difference, in that our underdog hero this time is Rainn Wilson's boring and put-upon middle-aged failure, and his motivation is less about being a superhero, and more about saving his disinterested girlfriend from drug dealers. However, it's very unfair to call this a cash-in on Kick-Ass, as this film takes a more realistic approach, glorifying absolutely nothing about our two main characters and, in fact, showing that both of them are really damaged beyond repair. As over-the-top as Kick-Ass seems, Super is actually far more brutal and realistic in terms of violence, eliciting disgust and wincing rather than any kind of admiration, including the heroes' own actions in assaulting criminals with tools. There were multiple points in this film where the violence wasn't just graphic, but actually oddly upsetting, not least in the bittersweet finale. All in all, this is an enjoyable film for those who like very black comedy, and can appreciate the fact that this goes even further with the message that being a superhero is a good way to get hospitalised. Admittedly, the religious subtext is very strange, and all but forgotten after the first half of the movie, but is understated enough to not be intrusive, and offers the bonus of Nathan Fillion as Jesus-themed hero Holy Avenger.

It's only terrorism if you don't wear a brightly-coloured costume.

The Hunger Games (2012)

This is probably the first film of the year for which the hype machine has been in true working order. Before The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers, we have The Hunger Games, an adaptation of the young adult science fiction novel by Suzanne Collins (who, for the record, had never read/seen Battle Royale). And, sad to say, the hype was for naught. At best, this is a middle-of-the-road film, breaking no new ground, offering no breakout performances, and leaving little impression. At worse, it's a derivative, treacle-paced bore-fest that spends too much time on boring build-up, ending in disappointing pay-off. It feels like an hour before we get to the eponymous contest, and when we do, there's an alteration between flashes of poorly-shot fight sequences and Jennifer Lawrence traipsing through the forest. And despite this incredibly long build-up, we see almost nothing of the training for the games, and every single contestant besides our mains, Katniss and Peeta, and the designated uber-baddie, get precisely no development - not even (with two exceptions) a name-drop. Why should I care about a character I know nothing about? Throughout, my mind kept drifting back to one of my favourite films, the aforementioned Battle Royale, another tale of school-children picked by a dystopian government for a game of last-man-standing murder. It's just not a fair comparison. In Battle Royale, alliances formed between the contenders based on either old friendships or an attempt to bring down the gamemasters. The Hunger Games had an alliance of antagonists for no discernible logical reason. Battle Royale offered characters we could care about, reacting in realistic ways to their situation. The Hunger Games offers a group of red-shirts with clearly delineated good guys and bad guys. This is the only conclusion - it's been done before, and it's been done better. The Hunger Games ends up as a watchable disappointment but, with three sequels in the works, a successful one.

Seriously, just watch this film. It's both horrifying and hilarious.