Review: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

Year: 2016
Director: Zack Synder
Screenplay: Chris Terrio, David S. Goyer
Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot

Synopsis is here:

The critics are wrong. They whine too much. They're far infatuated with what this pop culture brand used to be. Also, they don't remember how to have fun with the product. Boy oh boy is product the right word for this. The fanboys are wrong. At time of writing, I'm sure tons of comment boards will be aflame. Overwrought overreactions (with probable death threats) will be posted on sites and film forums. Trying to protect a film that will make millions no matter what. The brand will be saved from those nasty critics by the dollars of the TRUE fans. Boy oh boy is brand the right word for this film.

Let's try and be honest. Be it the negative reviews or the fanatics digging their heels, it doesn't matter because Batman vs Superman isn't really worth either. It highlights that Warner Bros and DC want to be the serious comic guys with the heavy issues, but does so at the expense of balance, storytelling and character development. This won't matter to the audience much. That’s not what they want to see. In the same way the Transformer franchise delivers robots smacking bolts out of each other, this delivers superheroes doing the same. It doesn't matter that Lois Lane does something incredibly stupid to maintain that there's an actual climax. It doesn't matter if the geography between Metropolis and Gotham exists in some kind of wormhole. Is a causal film goer or fan going to pick apart the fact that much of the film doesn't really seem to carry enough weight, from effects to character motivations? No, they will not. As long as the Batman and Superman are doing the man dance, little else matters.

This is unfortunate. For a viewer like myself, whose interest in Superheroes and the films they inhabit, waivers between intrigued casual fan to tired cynic, this film, which overzealous fanboys have crowned “only for the hard-core fandom” has decided to forget that it’s the broad audience that needs nourishing through these films, whether they like it or not. Batman vs Superman isn’t the worst superhero/comic book movie ever, but it is a comic book movie that could have been more than the sum of its parts.

I found myself once again sitting through a film which was exceedingly long, and yet has a narrative that never seems to progress. Characters make great exclamations, but actually say very little. Pieces of the puzzle get moved around, but never to build a fuller picture. It’s a film with weighty themes that do point towards a growing maturity towards the very ideals of heroism, and yet never does the film get to grips with what it’s trying to tackle. It can be argued because there’s some be fish to fry, but honestly, it could do with some decent work on the story’s connective tissue as opposed to setting up the next entry to its soon to be long running series. Claims of Iron Man (2010) doing the same is understandable, but it’s surprising what the charm of Robert Downey and Sam Rockwell can do. I will also say that the screenplay of that film doesn’t feel as patchy as this one, which has already had media outlets touting the 30 minutes extra left for the home video release.

Still, it’s not hard to be fascinated by the idea of Snyder continuing on the topics that raised eyebrows in Watchmen (2009). A modern world where idealism and heroism is dying and questioned. Cynicism bleeds through this film and to be honest, elements of it are somewhat refreshing. Even more so than Nolan’s own Dark Knight Series. Synder places these symbols in a world of black and white absolutes, Batman may be ok with picking up a gun. Superman questions the meaning of “goodness”. To even consider that world goes against what we think we know about these characters, yet still remains a compelling dynamic.

Other things frustrate. Lex Luthor for instance; a character who always seemed accustomed to acumen and preciseness, now feels likened more to a haphazard agent of chaos (similar to the Joker). Jesse Esseinberg’s coked up Trump Zuckerberg is entertainingly quirky performance, but the visual tics and manic energy do little to hide the fact that his plan to kill superman feels incoherent and unclear. We know the goal, but the reasoning never feels clear. Eisenberg always feels to be one second away from blurting out “everything burns”. Something that has never been his M.O. to my knowledge.

I also like the idea of a modern Superman, free from the shackles of Richard Donner and the cleanest cut Boy Scout image. But this figure is less tragic than just mopey. Heroism as a burden, unless it involves Lois Lane (A criminally underused Amy Adams). It's never engaging because Superman is never engaging. Neither by character or performance. Cavill’s stiff and dour Superman is combined with the angry and violent cynicism from Affleck’s impressive Wayne/Batman. The problem is in a film in which these two juggernauts are meant to clash, both heroes would happily jack the heroism thing in. There’s little to no conflict of points of view to really speak of. Just two miserable men being manipulated against each other. We don’t need wide eyed idealism, but Synder’s film has decided that neither character seems interested in nobility at all. This may not have been too much of an issue if the film settled on one of these characters. Because it doesn’t, we’re faced with overkill.

At least we’re given Batman’s origin story yet again, highlighting just how pushed to the side Superman often feels in a film which started out as a sequel to his own franchise. I have nothing but great things to say about Gal Gadot’s performance as Wonder Woman, but her subplot has little reason for being other than to wink at the hardcore fans. As does so many elements of the film (cameos, nods to future events, etc), which may have been better spent touching up the plot strands.
If there’s one thing that I cannot argue with, it’s Synder’s ability as a visual stylist and director of action. If the film's story felt as cohesive as the set pieces, I doubt we’d be obtaining the knee jerk early reviews we received. I can only imagine what the film looked like in the grandness of an IMAX screen. Watching Doomsday howling in front of the LexCorp sign is a simple yet effective visuals, as are the images of Superman hovering majestically in silhouette. It’s a shame, however, that more aspects don’t hold as much investment.

You don’t need to be paid by Marvel to see that so much of BVS is as unwieldly as its full title. Nor do you need a Zack Synder bias to feel that this is not the director’s greatest moment in terms of storytelling. There’s no anti-Warner Bros sentiment. If that’s the case, than why were Christopher Nolan’s Batman series so well received by critics? The reason why Marvel’s movies appear to be so much healthier (despite their own issues), is that the studio established a stronger structure to stand on.  Those claiming that its record breaking weekend defines this film as “good” should google just how often a film “breaks” a box office record these days.  I’d also like to see how they feel about Kim Kardashian. She too rakes in millions. Does that mean she should be adored with no questions asked? Same goes for Justin Bieber, Coldplay et al.

My personal view on Batman vs Superman is that it’s simply an overegged and overlong blockbuster. It contains some interesting ideas and some solid visuals, but no more. I came to this opinion a few days after my midnight screening of this feature. Others feel different. I won't be seeking them out with hate mail. I haven't got time. Some of us have lives to lead, Lives that don't need aggression about yet another entry in the long line of super operas. It may be interesting to see how the film frames itself in 2020 when even more of these suckers are released, but I’m not holding my breath in any way. Why should I? With Suicide Squad and Civil War are making their ways to cinemas soon, I’m finding it harder to find the time watching these things let alone arguing about them. Why fight in real life? Can’t we leave that to the Super heroes?

Review: The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Screenplay: Joss Whedon

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here:

I found Age of Ultron to be a bit of an oddity. It’s a film in which, like a Chris Nolan feature, piles on a heavy amount of exposition and characters explaining themselves in the simplest of terms. Yet when watching the likes of Inception (2010) or The Dark Knight Rises (2012), I always find myself quite satisfied with those film’s final acts. I found myself befuddled by the last third of Age of Ultron. Near the very Tony Stark devises an improvised plan to save the world, and the other Avengers comply and react accordingly. Yet once our heroes put the plan into action, I can’t say I was able to follow it.

It’s difficult to explain. I “got” what was happening in the overall sense. However, I found myself staring at the screen glassy eyed through most of the film's finale. Then again, I felt that for much of the films slightly clunky action set pieces. I never fully got with the rhythm of the film. Joss does well to balance Age of Ultron as much as he can. This is no simple task. Whedon does manage to inform the movie with a decent sense of scale (it certainly feels bulkier and more substantial than the other Phase Two features). However, the vast array of characters and the tricky issue of what to do with them all, is starting to show. I’m not surprised the film concludes in the way it does.

All this makes it sounds like I sat in the cinema with a permanent grimace on my face. Far from it. Age of Ultron excels in its character beats and developments. Whedon’s screenplay gives the likes of Thor permission become more ponderous and investigative. Hawkeye is allowed to become the human heart at the center of the team. An unlikely romance blossoms between characters and it’s not only the most remarkable element, but also the sweetest. I’m not surprised that Whedon’s character beats are the most effective aspects of the film. As someone who limited their consumption of film’s buzz and marketing to only the trailers, it didn’t shock me in the slightest that the quieter, less excitable scenes, are the ones I was drawn to.

Whedon’s sense of humour has not succumbed to the same fatigue I’ve had for superhero movies as whole (thanks constant hype!). The screenplay's punchlines and witticisms push the film along at a lively pace. Whedon also gets the best out of the cast. Both returning and newcomers. Elizabeth Oslon (Scarlet Witch) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Quicksilver) gives far more ample performances than they did in Godzilla (2014). Original heroes Pine, Downley Jr and Ruffalo, all come out the blocks fighting. Johansson, Hemsworth and Renner have the chance to show the most growth and do so with gusto. James Spader gives a delightfully quirky performance as Ultron, the A.I. with a god complex. As with Avengers Assemble (2012), Marvel’s most entertaining villains appear to be saved for this sector of its cinematic universe.

It’s a shame that the film’s narrative buckles under the sheer weight of everyone involved. I’ve not mentioned all the returning supporting cast, new characters and other characters who’ve appeared in other Marvel films and are returning. Everyone is fighting for space and it shows. Two major plot revelations occur and did little to elevate the heartbeat. It doesn’t help that every blog and film site did their best to eliminate any element of surprise. However, there’s just not enough time for everyone to breathe. I’m sure there’s a few comic fans who are happy to see everyone stuffed into the films 141 minutes. But I did find myself contemplating how well established, some characters were compared to others. After reading just how hard Whedon worked in the cutting of the film to give it a sense of order, you realise just how well he’s done to keep all the plates spinning.

Yep. It still sounds like I have too many misgivings. But honestly, watching Iron Man don hulkbusting amour and go toe to toe with the green giant is a huge bunch of fun. As is the musings of Ultron in general. There’s still much to unpack in Age of Ultron. It does seem that I’ll be leaving that to the hardcore fanboy audience. Age of Ultron didn’t leave me with an immediate wish to watch it again like the first film. But I did leave with enough of a smile on my face. 

Review: Man of Steel

Year: 2013

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S Goyer

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishburne

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: This review begins with a small description of a scene that may feel like a slight spoiler to some. You’ve been warned. 

Clark Kent is sitting in school. He cannot concentrate on the teacher’s voice. The fact is; he hears more than just the teacher’s voice, he also hears the voices of the other children. But they are not talking. He is hearing their thoughts. He can’t focus on the teacher, as when he looks at her he sees her biological workings. He sees her insides.

The child, confused at this sensory overload, dashes out of class and locks himself in a nearby closest, trying to shut out the voices and gain sense of just what is happening to him.  He doesn't leave until his mother arrives sometime later.

Clark Kent: “The World’s too big, Mom.”

Martha Kent: “Then make it small.”

It’s a tiny moment of a very large and lengthy film, but to me it’s one of the most important.  A short scene in which we witness the Kyptonian’s powers first-hand but also notice how far these powers may reach. Call him Clark, call him The Man of Steel, Moments like this only help remind us of the largest allegory people often attach to Superman; Jesus. The film Man of Steel, much like Superman, much like The Lord and savoir, must be all things to all men. However scenes like the one mentioned are few and far between in Snyder’s loud and proud “Epic”. The world of Superman is huge. I often had issues with Man of Steel as Snyder struggles to make it small.

Not to say that I disliked Man of Steel outright. The film’s main objective to me is to create a Superman for a generation.  That generation may not be for those who reach for Christopher Reeve’s portrayal, or certain versions of comic book. It's earnest in some of its intentions and tries hard. Looking back, this new, more anxiety ridden Superman almost reminds me of the trapped young characters of Snyder’s own Sucker Punch. While Sucker Punch is the weaker film and although both are visually different, both have their young characters seemingly escape into fractured mind sets of themselves. Sucker Punch’s Babydoll steps into an alternate dream world to protect herself, while we observe the view point of Clark Kent through flashback as he tries to make sense of the man he will soon become.

At first I found myself at odds with the cinematic language utilised to inform us of how this new Superman would come to be. Hand held cinematography is rife, while the films screenplay does little to help out the films flashback structure with Individual scenes being quite effective while others pale in comparison. I didn't feel that Snyder’s overall direction was bad, but I kept feeling that some moments felt more at home than others. I know many enjoyed the films beginnings on the planet Kypton, and yet these scenes to be quite dull. Meanwhile; scenes in Smallville of a young Clark growing up, fared much better.

I found that despite the more clunker aspects of the script; Synder’s direction of the actors and their performances, kept my interest levels up, even if the very nature of the characters themselves sometimes went astray. Cavill gives us a Superman that isn't an aping of Christopher Reeves but does more than enough to show us that it shouldn't be. Michael Shannon’s tone as Zod is all fire and fury and yet he manages to capture a tragic aspect of the antagonist. Shannon, who said in interviews that he stay away from playing Zod as a villain, depicts a character who believes that what he’s doing is righteous in his own eyes. The crowning achievement goes to Costner, whose performance as Jonathan Kent, speaks volumes as an actor whose best roles were often ones of earnestness. Here he manages to take this even further, breaking hearts in the process. Even when questioning Jonathan’s motives, Costner nails the grey area that lies in all of us. Do we agree on his actions? Possibly not, however, not only does Costner sell his scenes (with limited screen time) but he also makes “Pa” Kent and more interesting character to get a handle on.

Unfortunately; in terms of the female’s roles, I was less impressed. Diane Lane was fine, but her turn didn't 

strike me as hard as it has others. Meanwhile, I found the usually brilliant Amy Adams to be one of the biggest chinks in the films amour. Gone is the ballsy, go getting portrayal laid by Margot Kidder, we are now given yet another entry into bland damsels in distress graduation year of 2013. A Lois Lane is one that "kicks ass" yet never feels organic while her romance with Cavil feels awkward and cold. Adams is not helped by a screenplay that doesn't seem that interested in her as a character.

Once the film finds its rhythm in the third act, set pieces become the real name of the game (as is name checking aspects of the DC universe). Snyder revels in the loud and proud destruction that takes place. Secondary characters; that are suddenly now more important than the film made out, are shoved into danger. The scale of carnage reaches Doomsday (the character) levels. I was impressed with just how overwhelming the scale was. You see where the money went and I can’t say I wasn't entertained.

Funnily enough, many have been disgruntled by the vast amount of collateral damage that is evident and how muted the response is considering the source. I found myself more annoyed at Iron Man 3 than here. Stark had hit the peak of his story arch at this point and I found his actions towards his antagonists problematic (due to certain story elements). I maybe wrong; but here we have a hero who is still learning who he is in the world and Snyder’s film still manages to execute a motion that helps address what we see.

Maybe Snyder and his crew will address some of this film’s frustrations with more clarity in the next instalment. Isn't that the way now? Just wait till the next one to answer your queries while supplying you with more? The scale and action is in the right place but other aspects are sloppy. Until Snyder can ground his story and characters as well as Richard Donner did with the first two films, then I feel we will once again have an uneven playing field. There was enough to keep me interested though. There’s room for improvement. It’s difficult trying to be perfect.

Review: Chronicle

Year: 2012
Director: Josh Trank
Screenplay: Max Landis
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, and Alex Russell

Warning: I will not be too specific about certain plot elements, however, spoilers are bound.

Synopsis is here

Chronicle is great fun. In fact at times it's pretty awesome. I mean this in the traditional definition, as opposed to the casual modern trend. The films spectacle actually brought forth a certain amount of amazement. I was in no way expecting it. Particularly from a film, which had only been described to me as "the found footage superhero movie". Such quick branding is correct but almost gives a disservice to a film which confidently melds elements of Superman, Spideman, Cloverfield, and Ginger Snaps (or maybe the breakfast club) into one entertaining mass.

It follows the typical beats of the super hero movie, but it doesn't feel derivative. Far from it. If Cloverfield was to tailor fit Godzilla for the YouTube generation, then Chronicle feels like the extremely snug super hero costume for the same people. Establishing the characters quickly and solidly, the film does well to try and combat the some of the issues that come with the found footage sub-genre. We are given a withdrawn character; Andrew (DeHaan) who decides to place his focus into documenting what he can see, if nothing else for himself. It's clear that it keeps him occupied from all the tragic elements that haunt his life. He states that; it "creates a barrier", between himself and what's happening within him and the other characters. Not only does it help detail the obsession with filming, but you can sense the trouble brewing from such statements.

But before then, we see and sense the fun. As these three fast friends, discover an artefact that given them extraordinary powers, we watch them jerk about with them in a way that only teens would. In a way that we would in the same circumstance. They learn and discover more and we are reminded of that same thrill that Peter Parker had in Spiderman. While it doesn't have the same exhilaration that Tobey Maguire infused, when he first got bitten by that bitch of a spider, it's still in the same ballpark.

Yet, in the same way we would lark about if we had powers (if only I could control gravity), Chronicle realises it's that real life would get in the way just easily. As the trios powers grow, so do their issues. The film cleverly mirrors adolescence and home problems with the increasing abilities. Andrew whose background is already shrouded in darkness (dying mother, booze father) begins to fall into his own egoism.
The philosophical aspects of Schopenhauer, briefly noted in the beginning of the film start to come into play and the tension and spectacle rises. To quote Nietzsche: "If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." Andrew seems to be staring more intently than Anakin.

The film rolls at a great pace, with deeper characterisation and better story telling than bigger films within the same genre. It's almost embarrassing looking at how effective this movie is in comparison to the likes of The Green Lantern, which could struggled to even establish why we should be watching Ryan Reynolds making huge green fists. The effects are not up to Transformers standard, but the investment of what's going on allows us to overlook this. Chronicle does build to an effective and power crescendo which bypassed my admittedly low expectations and provided something that was really quite thrilling.

It's not without it's flaws. The film, like many found footage features, can't full shake off the restraints of the sub-genre. It's clear to see when the film is providing us with establishing shots that wouldn't be part of the characters concern. The film's final third is greatly entertaining but also forgets at times it's meant to be user utilized content. Also, some of the plot points not only has a distinct smell of the magical negro, but also highlight a small issue with some of the mechanics of the film.

For the most part however, Chronicle sets it's sights as a film that could gain cult status. It plays with superhero story effectively and is solidly entertaining throughout. The makers of all the next generation of upcoming comic adaptations, could do little harm with checking out what this does right.

Review: Super

Year: 2011 (U.K release 2011)
Director: James Gunn
Screenplay: James Gunn
Starring: Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, Kevin Bacon

Synopsis is here

So James Gunn's Super rears it's head upon whining that it's just the same as Kick-Ass by people who didn't read the memo on Defendor and Special which both slipped under the radar. Hell even at a stretch you could bemoan that Mystery Men is almost kinda like Kick-Ass but only at a stretch. That's aside, it's no surprise to see that with similar material Matthew Vaughan brings a slick piece of gloss to the big screen, while Gunn's Super is a little darker, murkier and reminiscent of his twisted Troma roots. Super appears to us with a much more visceral look to the beatings on screen and a more troubled insight to the psyche of some of the tortured minds of these wannabe superheroes. Needless to say, Kick-ass doesn't have a squid like creature opening up a characters skull in order for the finger of god to poke the brain inside.

If that last sentence piqued your interest then you will be more than fine with Super, I know I was. I reacted to the film in the same way I reacted to Observe and Report in that you shouldn't laugh at what's gong down but the timing and absurdness of it all makes it hard not to. It revels in it's irrelevance but it also works as it has a  Rainn Wilson performance that towers over his great comedic work in The American Office. There's a softness in his quieter moments that helps elevate the performance as Wilson balance his troubled character with equal amounts of pity and pathos.  The humour is there too as his zealous yelling of "SHUT UP CRIME" were always able to make me crack a smile.

Wilson is joined by a game cast with Liv Tyler and Micheal Rooker being underused but solid enough while Kevin Bacon takes a sleazy bite of scenery once more, as he did in recent comic-book feature X-men: First Class. Ellen Page lets loose in a bizarre little role as a geeky side-kick to Wilson's Frank. However despite the film clearly being an offbeat character piece, the moments with her character seemed underwritten. I get the feeling that Gunn could have done even more with such a character, unfortunately Page's Libby is left a little to the wayside, as it a plot strand with Gregg Henry's Detective role who quickly loses important once his main scene is done.

This doesn't distract from the main fact that Super; with it's over the top violence and dark comedy, is still an entertaining distraction. While Kick-Ass lightened some elements of the original material to make it a bit more palatable to those who didn't read the comic, Super keeps things as black as it can giving the film a weird super hero, king of comedy vibe. A guy like me who knows of Gunn's z-list beginnings, found it easy to get on board with the offering we get here. For others I give you the litmus test: Ellen Page talking about her "gushy" genitals while donned in a super hero costume. Not liking that? Best avoid the movie.

Review: The Green Hornet

Year: 2011
Director: Michel Gondry
Screenplay: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson

Synopsis is here

Can't you just feel it? January dumping ground, a production plagued with issues and Seth Rogen who to some may have peeked a while back. Here Rogen has not only starring credit, but also writing and production ones. That may mean nothing to some, frustration to others. To me it provides a certain amount of investment. Rogen is an actor I have sometime for and in most of this film I dug him. As a writer, I feel he relies too much on winging it as the improv really shows. As a executive producer? Well this may be in place because Rogen probably helped get this thing finally off the ground.

Despite this, for the most part I enjoyed the green hornet even though better reviewers and critics may try and make me feel like I shouldn't. The plot is a patchy mish mash of most superhero origins going and I will not lie to say that I was completely in love with the Rogen's script (dialogue wise to say it ain't Shakespeare is an insult to things that ain't Shakespeare). However Michel Gondry (Director behind the beautiful Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind) somehow manages to piece together a workable tone. The result is a film with enough knockabout fun to keep me interested and the right amount of nifty visuals (although this is toned down from what we usually see from him) to keep my eyes open.

One thing the film's screenplay manages to get right is playing with the idea of ego between hero, sidekick/partner and villian. Throughout the slapstick, farce and cgi action; the film throws an interesting power struggle and a underused but amusingly silly identity crisis into the superhero mix. Here we have an older gangster whose worried about not being scary enough, while we have a hero who gains the kudos but can't get the girl. Who does? Ask the nameless sidekick. This is not a film that wants to push any of these things truly into the forefront, but they build a rickety yet intriguing foundation for all the flash and gloss.

Gondry seems to know that this isn't really "his" film, and that a shame because when the man is unleashed he is something to behold. Here however, Gondry is happy to place together action set pieces that you can keep track of, silly slow motion moments and a general nuttiness to keep things ticking over. This added to when the actors improvisation actually hits home may not be as effectively subversive as Kick-Ass, but it does manage to remind one that superheroes films needn't have to be gritty.

Acting-wise this is a mixed bag indeed. Cameron Diaz and Tom Wilkinson are restricted to cameo performances, while Jay Chou shows that while it's tough having to act in a second language, it's even worse having to do it when your real job is a pop singer who has to improvise very other line. He is however a good sport and it shows as he comes across well enough. Christoph Waltz once again show that he is an actor of great presence, it's a pity that he could have done with a character that could match it. Then we come to Seth Rogen; who will not win over anyone new here, but will keep his core fans happy. He is playing himself but I enjoy him enough to to completely chastise him.

The Green Hornet would have been eaten alive if left on the summer release dates that it was originally given. You could say its January ghost town release is a saving grace, critics have begged to differ (despite being on target box office wise) as many have been savaging the flick. Me? Well I can't lie. By the time Britt Reid and Kato start wailing on each other in an OTT smackdown fight. I was giggling.


Additional note (16/1/11 - 23:40): Just after writing this. I discovered this link from the L.A times stating that it really may not have been Gondry's film. 

Review: Kick-Ass

Year: 2010
Director: Matthew Vaughan
Screenplay: Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughan
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chole Mortez, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Clark Duke, Mark Strong, Nicolas Cage

I can't lie when I say this but I found it to be very difficult to truly get down with the buzz of Kick-ass. When sites like Ain't it cool cooed over its more than warm reception at comic-con, I found it hard to be that excited. It's a super-hero movie based on a comic book written by a notable comic book writer. Call me a cynic but is it really that hard to get comic book fans that impressed over something like this?

The answer? Probably. We all know how finicky fanboys get when Hollywood comes over with it's millions; purchasing material left, right and center to make dubious movies like Catwoman (A film I watched for free and still wanted my cash back). Kick-ass is a little different in that it was more independently produced and had no one to really answer to. This is probably why we've had such a intrusive ad campaign for the project. So meddlesome were the rollover ads, that at one point when checking my mail, the ad was also blocking ANOTHER ADVERT FOR THE BLOODY MOVIE. If the aliens of They Live existed then we would have been under their control to obey in minutes.

Anyway, all that aside there was a lot of hoopla surrounding the film and sometimes with an arsehole like myself this can go the other way from what people want. I've had cinema managers stating it's the best comic-book movie in the last five years, I've had people who were on the film telling me years in advance to watch out for it, So after all the talk, the buzz and ads that block ads advertising the same thing...was it worth it? The answer is yes. I found Kick-ass to be a very satisfying movie. Part coming of age, part comic-book movie, but most importantly all fun.

Picture Watchmen without the anguish, Spiderman without the cheese factor and you get the gist of what your expecting. It's a comic-book movie that loves it's source material and takes pleasure in its absurdity without getting too bogged down in the mental misery that tortures Bruce Wayne in his sleep, or bothers Clark Kent when he's stalking his kid. There is angst throughout the movie, but it's handled well enough that you don't wish to punch the characters in the face. Quite the opposite actually, as screenwriter Jane Goldman (Johnathon Ross' amply breasted wife) and director Matthew Vaughan bring us characters that are very likable and enjoyable to follow.

While it takes narrative points from the aforementioned Spiderman, Kick-ass manages not only to feel fresh but also remain amusingly subversive at times, the titular Kick-ass character likening super-heroes to serial killers is one of the quieter highlights with other moments include aspects such as tracking down Kick-ass' secret identity; a moment which I thought about first and was pleased when the characters brought it up. The film also revels in moments of meta-fiction; idea of a film of a comic book character who then gets his own comic book within the film is a bit of a trippy one, along with a certain filmmaker craftily making sure his wife gets a piece of the action. Also, fans of Layer Cake will not wonder where they've seen that 4x4 before.

But with all the self-referential winks to the audience what Vaughan doesn't forget what they've has come to see and fills the film with some bold set pieces, including two action sequences involving the films break out star Hit-girl (a superlative display from Chloe Moretz) that I absolutely adored. He also helps coax some great performances out of his cast. The aforementioned Moretz is great fun, while Aaron Johnson once again shows off the potential that made his portrayal of John Lennon so appealing in Nowhere Boy. Mark Strong is slowly becoming the go-to guy for general villainy (he makes it look easy). On a lesser note Christopher Mintz-Plasse looks like he may become the next Micheal Cera, while Lyndsy Fonseca is gorgeous but don't look for a show stealing turn as she hasn't got too much to work with. Clark Duke shows his comic timing and made me smile often as Marty. It's a little unfortunate he didn't have me biting the inside of my cheek as much as Nic Cage; two words: Adam West.

So final thoughts on Kick Ass? It works. It's fast, snappy and fun. It took me a little while to get into but once the film finds it's rhythm then I was with it all the way. A film with genuinely enjoyable characters wrapped in an action packed ultra violent package. Empire is suggesting on it's front page as "your new favorite film" which of course comes off as the hyperbole it is but as a piece of mainstream entertainment it's a damn good laugh.