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.

Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

If you attempted to make Independence Day in the real world, as opposed to whatever over-compensating, disaster-prone reality that Roland Emmerich inhabits, it might look a little something like this. However, this threatens to rob the film of the greatest advantages of Independence Day, namely the spectacular special effects shots. While Battle: LA is not devoid of special effects, they are more akin to District 9, opting for more gritty realism. However, effects aside, if there is a word to describe this film, it is simply "safe". Not a single original risk is taken with this production; it is a supremely cliched alien invasion story populated entirely by the stock marines we have come to expect. We have our unambiguously evil alien invaders. They have superior, if not insurmountable, technological capabilities. Their objective is the theft of our natural resources, in this case our water. As for the marines, Handsome-Leading-Man, Out-Of-His-Depth-Young-C.O., Ethnic Minorities #1, #2 and #3, Rookie, Cocky-Guy, and Michelle Rodriguez (who is, in herself, a stereotype). The unoriginality is the main obstacle to be overcome, as if you just want a basic, no-frills action film about an alien invasion, this will do. Those who would prefer something they haven't seen dozens of times before are going to be sorely disappointed. If you've seen a few movies in your time, then there are no prizes for guessing every plot-twist, as they're sign-posted from miles away. Add a dash of uninspiring design on both the aliens and their technology, and the finished product is a film that will likely entertained as you're watching it, but which quickly becomes more disappointing the more it is contemplated. If you want realistic aliens, stick with District 9 or the original Day The Earth Stood Still; if you don't, you can't go wrong with Mars Attacks or Emmerich's Mac-vulnerable extraterrestrials.

Would marines have even been necessary if these guys made up the welcome wagon?

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

I remember that when this film came out, it was the first time I looked at a Disney film and saw something that seemed a far-cry from the sugar-coated productions we are used to from the House of Mouse. Of course, this is rather foolish in that it ignores the staggering body count found in most of the animated Disney films, but here was a movie that a teenage boy could claim to attend and enjoy without the same embarrassment as admitting that Mufasa's death is one of the most formative and traumatic experiences of your life. But Pirates was and is a gem in this category, nothing particularly spectacular, but immensely enjoyable, suitable for kids with the sanitised pirate hordes, and featuring the indefatigable Jack Sparrow before he was diminished by being written as Jack Sparrow rather than a true character. The score is memorable, the humour is dark and rather adult in places, and the scenery is pretty stunning, particularly the Caribbean imperial outpost Port Royal. Seemingly endless sequels have caused the series to pall considerably, but the original is still extremely watchable, reminding us that far more important to piracy than the plundering, burning, maiming, murdering, and whoring is the freedom that comes from the open ocean. At least that is what Disney would like us all to think.

A large part of me hopes that Michael Bolton attended his own "piracy" court date dressed like this...

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2007, 2008, 2011)

I could write an incredible diatribe against these three films, particularly the first but also the second and third. The first is a veritable maelstrom of misinformation, blind conjecture and outright lies. A ridiculous attempt to tie an inaccurate account of the origins of the Christian faith to demonstrably false conspiracy theories about the 9/11 atrocities, all in order to blame the faceless and omnipotent "corporate bankers" that seem to be the source of all the world's ills. Films two and three dial down the insanity and, while retaining the crackpot economic theories, focus on the Venus Project, the brainchild of "social engineer" Jacque Fresco. It's a Roddenberryian view of the future, and while it has alot of merits, not least its emphasis on throwing resources into scientific advancement and betterment, it a rosy-tinted view, throwing imaginary technology at the various problems facing the world, and, in my humble opinion, over-stating the viability of alternative energy sources. In particular, the second film lauds geothermal power as a complete solution to the energy crisis, while failing to mention it's tremendous output of greenhouse gases. There simply are no easy fixes in the world, there are only possibilities. It will take more than a factually dubious "documentary" film to make any difference, and I personally think that the Zeitgest Movement resulting from these productions is an idealistic, short-sighted, scientifically-uninformed and credulous waste of time which might be put to far better use.


9/11 conspiracy? Does this look like Lex Luthor to you?

Kaijū Sōshingeki / Destroy All Monsters (1968)

The theory behind Destroy All Monsters is the same theory as lurks behind every great money-spinning scheme; get a bunch of recognisable rubber monsters together and have them beat the ever-loving gravy out of one another. Sadly, this is the film's only real strength, with an extremely long and drawn out plot before we get to the final monster melee. Admittedly seeing all the monsters attack cities is enjoyable, especially featuring the best attack by Godzilla on New York City committed to film, but the story is stock alien invasion, Invasion of the Body Snatchers fare. It's almost not worth sitting through the first chunk of the film to see the goofy rubber beasties lay the smack-down, including some under-rated monsters like Varan and the mighty Baragon. The final fight certainly fulfills the function of providing stock footage for the next few films in the slowly spiraling-downward 70s Godzilla films. All in all, this is memorable mainly for its finale, and as a film it fails to stay engaging enough to justify holding the viewers attention. Disappointing.


All Hail!

Hot Fuzz (2007)

The second addition to Edgar Wright's "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy" (inspired by Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Three Colours" trilogy) lampoons the "buddy cop movie" genre by subjecting it to the same treatment as Shaun of the Dead; i.e. they take a Hollywood formula and set it in a sleepy English setting, complete with all the irony and cynicism inherent to British comedy. Hot Fuzz brings in many other movie conventions as well, however, mocking slasher films, mildly implying that the male leads are a rom-com couple, and even an epic kaiju-style battle between Tim from Spaced and James Bond. This film could easily be called "Chekov's Gun: The Movie", where almost everything in the first half of the film comes back as something relevant to the finale. This isn't a criticism, as it is incredibly self-aware, relishing the corniness and partaking in the cliches wholeheartedly and with heavy sarcasm. Honestly, for a Brit, it's just nice to see the quintessentially American action film being played out in a more recognisable location, particularly scenes like the armed police storming a Somerfield, or the typical one-liners delivered in a thick Gloucestershire accent. This is just good fun, functioning well as both a parody and a genuine example of a loud and action-packed action movie, as well as being downright hilarious. The third edition in the trilogy, tentatively titled The World's End has alot to live up to.


Make a crack about gingers. I dare you.