Australia (Movie Review)

Originally written and posted on December 3, 2008.

Australia

You know what would surprise me, Hollywood? A shiny big name film where the auxiliary character that narrates it doesn’t survive. At least that would keep the film interesting. I can tolerate derivative clichés for the average movie, but when I’m expected to spend three hours staring blankly at a screen, you could at least make an effort to mix things up from time to time. The only thing about Australia that keeps you guessing is exactly when the hell it’s going to end.

So I’ve broken my promise to never watch another Nicole Kidman movie after The Invasion was a pile of suck and Daniel Craig tricked me into paying admission for The Golden Compass. Since I don’t attend linguistics classes anymore, I spend my Monday nights wandering around campus looking for something to do. Usually this leads me to the ole theatre house. After spending ten minutes debating whether to watch Australia or something else, I decided to pick the movie that would kill the most time. I emerged from Auditorium #23 of AMC at Yonge and Dundas three hours later with a strengthened resolve to boycott Nicole Kidman.

Maybe that’s a bit harsh since Australia really isn’t that bad if you ignore the deliberately indulgent run time (that is why they call them epic movies after all). The year is 1939 and World War II is just getting into the swing of things. Not that anyone in the land down under particularly cares though since most of the residents spend their days getting into bar fights and pondering new racial slurs. Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) owns a cattle farm in northern Australia that’s fallen on hard times and leaves England to protect her interests from a rival cattle company on the verge of a monopoly. At the same time, World War II has Australia on edge since their position on the conflict isn’t exactly clear. Australia can be neatly cleaved in two: the first half following Lady Ashley’s cattle rustling adventures with Drover (Hugh Jackman, who seems to be channeling Clint Eastwood for most of the film), and the second half being a collection of dramatic air-strikes.

But wait, this is actually all beside the point. Australia is really about the “Lost Generation,” a group of mixed coloured children delightfully dubbed creamies, although I’m pretty sure I was the only one who found this funny. The narrator is Mulla, a young creamy boy who hangs around Lady Ashley’s cattle farm. Between the cattle rustling and air-strikes is the main plot thread of tolerance and family, tragically overshadowed by the more visually interesting things surrounding it (even if there is some god-awful green screen work from time to time). The closing captions of the film tug at the heartstrings of family and acceptance, but I couldn’t buy into it since the characters never really gave me a reason to, and it never seemed important. Sure the film pointed this out before they could even throw up the 20th Century Fox logo, but it’s a shining of example of how not to tell a story. This thread was so downplayed and poorly drawn that indeed no one would have cared had the film not reminded us at the end. I can’t be generous either since they had plenty of time to get this point across effectively (165 minutes to be precise).

Australia is visually pretty though, as it had damn well better be considering how long I have to sit there and look at it. The scenery is well captured and there’s a great sense of scope and breadth. The cinematography is never particularly inspired and hardly takes any chances, but for the most part it’s competent. The only real grievances come from the director’s lopsided tone. The film begins with a jaunty score and light humour, and this dissipates into serious drama without much subtlety. The narrative isn’t quite as streamlined as a film of this nature demands, which is unfortunate because it could have actually been really excellent. Instead, it just settles for passing entertainment.

It’s difficult to pass judgment on Australia because while it’s a solid film that achieves its goals, it does so without an appreciable panache that demands attention. It’s the type of film I’d recommend seeing if you’re standing outside a theatre with $12-$13 in your pocket and three hours to kill, but it’s not necessary viewing. An ambitious project that the world will soon forget.

Angels & Demons (Movie Review)

Originally written and posted on May 15, 2009.

Angels & Demons

In describing his feelings to the critical reception to 2006′s The Da Vinci Code, director Ron Howard often used the word “frustrating.” This is a rather appropriate one word summation of the film and everything that revolved around it. The source material, plotting, characters, screenplay, expectations, and limitations imposed on the adaptation of the Da Vinci Code would frustrate any director trying to craft a decent film from it, and I’ll be frank when I say that it largely doesn’t matter since Ron Howard was frustrated to a gross revenue on the prettier side of $750 million. But the mere fact that Howard was at all concerned with the reception despite the fact that it was destined to sell no matter what he made is cause for hope with Angels & Demons, a sequel film from a prequel novel. Howard knows that Angels & Demons will sell regardless of quality, but the fact he will still try and make a good film from the messy material is laudable of itself.

Angels & Demons is one of the rare adaptations where I had actually read the book far in advance of even the announcement of the film. Rarer still is how I experienced the book the way it was meant to be. You see, Angels & Demons (and by extension Digital Fortress, Deception Point, and The Da Vinci Code), is a book designed to be read at airports and during long flights. I was on a trip from Toronto to Los Angeles, a trip sadly predating my possession of a Nintendo DS, and I had picked up Angels & Demons as something to kill time. To that extent and only that extent is Angels & Demons a good book.

The book Angels & Demons is a breezy page turner, not meant to be taken seriously despite the pretensions of Dan Brown’s will. Taken out of that context, the book is a complete joke, and this is nowhere more apparent than in its film adaptation. All airport written novels are weak stories padded out with cheap thrills and cliché, designed like a breakneck Hollywood blockbuster but lacking any semblance of credibility like character, wit, or even entertainment. It’s a deadly cycle of book/film/book/film rip-off to the point of nausea where no one remembers where it all began, but we all agree that it’s a mushy mess of mediocrity. Angels & Demons almost comes full circle, representing everything that’s wrong with the genre while bilking powerful executives to grant a credible director with a hundred million dollar budget for a tenfold return.

With expectations so low, the film adaptation could only be worse than its source if I walked out of the theatre with leprosy. Since I don’t have any skin lesions (yet), Angels & Demons must be somewhat successful.

Robert Langdon is a Harvard Symbologist who, fresh after cracking The Da Vinci Code, is roped into yet another religious conspiracy as a mysterious Illuminati symbol appears to be threatening Vatican City shortly after the death of the pope. He and his partner Vittoria Vetra, a scientist working with anti-matter (a.k.a. the “God Particle”) at the Large Hadron Collider, are tasked with retrieving a stolen anti-matter canister hidden somewhere in Vatican City. The anti-matter will destroy a sizeable chunk of Italy if fallen out of electro-magnetic suspension when the battery dies at midnight, and it’s up to them to save the day because the Swiss Guard are utterly useless.

The constant barrage of enlightenment era names and works throughout the film may intimidate certain audiences as being subject matter a bit too intellectually highbrow. If you can’t tell the difference between Sanzio and Bernini, let me assure you that you’re not alone and that it really doesn’t matter. The little details are so casually referenced that they quickly become debased into meaning absolutely nothing and in no time at all they take a backseat to the frantic pace Angels & Demons must maintain. Excitement is the order of the day, lest the film be skewered like its predecessor for being occasionally boring. Many of the film’s other problems like plot and relevance can be easily forgiven providing it maintains a sense of motion.

Where Angels & Demons struggles is its apprehension to throw out the events of the book in favour of creating a better story. There have been some alterations, but the changes aren’t significant and only reflect a desire to speed up the procession of the film and not to make the film any better or worse, giving the impression that screenwriters Koepp and Goldsman have some form of reverence for the original story (raucous laughter). Instead of using the book as merely a jumping off point for the film while breaking out the glue and scissors to craft something more appropriate for the medium à la the Bourne series (which also shares the airport gibberish backing), Howard and company take as much as is possible from the original book as if there was a rabid fanbase to appease à la Watchmen. The film is stuck in limbo, desperately trying to come into its own yet it resists severing the necessary connections to its foundation. I am criticizing its adherence to its source because its source is not very good.

With Angels & Demons futile predilections for its origin comes the realization that Robert Langdon is a terribly uninteresting character. It’s rather remarkable that after two lengthy outings, it’s still impossible to give a damn about what happens to him. There are occasional moments where he begins to earn our empathy or interest, such as the quirk with his red Mickey Mouse timepiece, but the plot’s urgency immediately whisks it all away, turning him into another casualty in the war between Brown’s two most beloved characters, Science and Religion. A certain realization dawned on me towards the end of the film that perhaps we’re not supposed to see Langdon, Vetra, Camerlengo, Richter, Strauss, etc. as characters, but as vehicles for the aforementioned great all encompassing thesis of the movie. Naturally, this is a stupid idea. Turning the characters into thematic soldiers widens the gap between the film and our interest, and destroys any subtlety or nuance that Brown might have accidentally written. And it just goes downhill from there. A deafening crowd of confused Christians amasses in St. Peter’s Square during the papal protocols, and a shot focuses on a nun and a religiously lapsed man debate the merits of knowledge and faith. “Ignoring stem cell research is murder!” he screams. “Man is not God!” she retorts. That’s Angels & Demons’ issue in a nutshell.

To the film’s credit, characterizing the two ends of the debate nearly works, but the shame is that it could’ve been had both ways. The characters are mere autonomous tools, not active agents. I like the idea of Cardinals being infinitely patient and virtuous men, aware of the flaws of its institution while still admiring its perseverance, and I like the idea of scientists being a bit too hasty and arrogant, eager to ride one invention until next year’s model. I just wish they didn’t wait until the last act to shift into this gear. That said, depending on your own personal feelings towards the Science vs. Religion argument, it’s possible to emerge from the film enraged, cheated, or entirely placated. Certainly the ending is a bit of a copout from the argument, but it provides the requisite twist necessary to tie off the film. Most people would be too exhausted to care by that point anyway.

Angels & Demons is an improvement from its predecessor, largely because it makes the most of what it settles on working with. Ludicrous plot and bland character aside, it keeps moving once it falls into a solid groove and should keep people who haven’t read the book engaged. If you have read the book though, this adaptation is far too faithful and not nearly inventive enough to be worth a look.

Adventureland (Movie Review)

Originally written and posted on April 3, 2009.

Adventureland

The peculiar brand of mainstream comedy films heralded by the likes of Judd Apatow in 2005 and Greg Mottala in 2007 is most impressive for the fact that their directors and the people involved are not obliged to milk the same crass joke until the charismatic lead decides to try a dramatic role and is promptly swept under the rug. The good comedy team will hit a stride and then dabble with the established formula for something appreciably different while still being familiar in each iteration, while the bad comedy team will hit a stride and then see how many times they can change the paintwork before someone notices (see: Talladega Nights, Semi-Pro, or Blades of Glory [actually, only see one because they're all the same bloody movie, just focusing on a different sport]). Greg Mottala’s Adventureland is as much Superbad 2 as it is something else entirely fresh and new.

Adventureland is the summer of 1987 as seen through the eyes of James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg), a pedantic sort who dreams of graduate school in New York but is unfortunately resigned to a summer job since adverse times have left his family without the fabulous wealth that could afford it. To raise funds, he accepts a job as a carnie at the local theme-park and has the sort of magical summer helplessly romantic suburbanites dream of in between getting wasted and lamenting their parents. Over the course of his summer, he falls for Em (Kristen Stewart), a fellow carnie who is having trysts with the park’s married mechanic, Connell (Ryan Reynolds), and navigates relationships with other quirky employees in what is the narrative equivalent of bumper-cars.

Whereas Superbad, Greg Mottola’s only other noteworthy film, was spirited and light-hearted, Adventureland is markedly different in that the emotional factors are rather heavy. The summer is filled with bickering, quarrels, and gossip, and the tone, coupled with the somewhat melodramatic nostalgic song selection, is quite weighty. If you were expecting a comedy, uproarious or otherwise, prepare to be disappointed because Adventureland is far more a drama sprinkled with occasional punch-lines than a comedy driven by a relationship. This doesn’t mean the film is bad, it just means that I had my expectations crossed. When you accept what the film is and when Adventureland does hit its stride, it does manage to realize the majority of its ambitions (truth be told, the early pacing is far too sluggish regardless of genre).

Without question, the strongest part of Adventureland is the actors and their characterization. For its genre, the film really is quite peerless in its depth. Every character is fully realized and convincingly shaped within the films duration, and they are all expertly played. It’s building on what Superbad did right and adding a few new elements of its own. James Brennan is Seth and Evan rolled into one and sent back in time twenty years (both in appearance and attitude), and Em is the amalgamation of Rebecca and Jules who is more aggressive and fully defined. Park owner Bobby (Bill Hader) is Superbad’s cops only pushed back into a supporting position, Connell is placed as a slight antagonist, and the secondary cast are all developed beyond padded bit players.

It’s just unfortunate that for everything Adventureland does right, the film has to be crippled by a flaw too apparent to forgive. You see, there are moments when Adventureland truly engages me, but those moments are far too short lived. Just as I, a person who is more or less exactly like these characters (only separated from them by a couple of decades) beings to identify with their problems, someone will give someone else a mix-tape or offer an invitation to a Judas Priest concert or talk about the car they want that is so technologically advanced thanks to its compact disc player, and the film promptly reminds me that I’m not a member of its target audience. These nuances certainly authenticate the experience, but it also drastically diminishes the appeal of the film to people who either don’t care about the eighties or were still in the making at that point. There are certain generational gaps Adventureland manages to cross, but it’s ultimately a product for people who grew up in the era it depicts. Anyone will be able to get the jokes and humour, but there a certain people who it will resonate with far more strongly. It’s actually quite the double-edged sword.

I really shouldn’t complain that much since writer/director Greg Mottola already gave me the film that would’ve summed up my life rather succinctly providing I was ever the sort to actively pursue relationships with other people, so if anything I appreciate the sentiment and the fact that his films attempt to cater to disparate generations quite effectively. Simply put, what made Superbad engaging for everyone (the sharp and poignant dialogue, the rapid fire delivery, the lively energy and soundtrack) has been replaced with something a little more leisurely and a little more heartfelt*. Adventureland is a great film if you’re in your late 30′s/early 40′s, and a good film for everyone else.

Avatar (Movie Review)

Originally written and posted on January 4, 2010.

Avatar

Please note that this review is intended for people who have already seen the movie and are looking for additional insights. There will be spoilers, unlabeled, and it assumes a familiarity with the subject. Read at this discretion.

“I’m king of the world!”

James Cameron, upon receiving the Oscar for Best Director at the 70th Academy Awards ceremony in 1997, said these very words in reference to his groundbreaking film Titanic, the film which gave him that honour. In the present day twelve years later, with the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon in early March of 2010, one can’t help but wonder if we’ll hear James Cameron say these words again, albeit slightly tweaked to include the word “still.” With Avatar, another stellar worldwide success that also happens to be a technical marvel with a solid narrative, it’s certainly possible. The king has returned to reclaim his throne and at the same time show every blockbuster filmmaker from Bay to Zemeckis exactly how to do their job.

On the whole, Avatar is a very neat (in the sense that it is quite orderly and efficient) and very traditional movie. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is marine corporal who has lost the use of his legs and is admitted into a special program on a distant moon called Pandora, the purpose of which is to create human/Na’vi hybrids for the sake of diplomacy with an obstinate indigenous population that refuse to be evicted by avaricious military men and industrialists. Initially tasked with infiltrating and sabotaging the stubborn tribe by the war hungry Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), Jake defects and leads a revolt with his new Na’vi girlfriend, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and her tribesmen at his side.

Avatar is divided into three separate acts with distinct transition phases between them that aren’t overly protracted and disruptive. The first act establishes the rudiments of Pandora, its current state of affairs, and the influential characters of both the native inhabitants and the human interlopers. The second act is as thorough an examination of a cinematic science fiction world’s ecology as has arisen since The Lord of the Rings. The third act is the climactic showdown between the two irreconcilable forces to which the characterization of the first two sections has been leading up. The first transition sequence between acts one and two is the depiction of Jake’s first night alone in the dense jungle of Pandora. The second transition sequence is the initial attack by the humans on the Na’vi’s colony.

Many of the criticisms Avatar has received appear to be from people who became disconnected from Cameron’s universe during the very leisurely pace of the second act, the general attitude being that either you’re on board or you’re not by the time the Na’vi are revealed to possess fibre optic hair. Immersion can be a fickle thing, and anything from refusal to accept certain truths of Cameron’s world to flimsy 3D glasses can shatter the illusion and break the deal for obstinate individuals. I myself was taken in the moment Jake’s Avatar massaged the fresh Pandora soil with a new working pair of feet, the audience quantum leaping into Pandora in much the same way.

For some people, however, this is as far as they’re willing to get. Floating mountains cascading water from their cores and jungle beds illuminating with every step in the middle of the night effectively alienating such people, causing questions of “why?” instead of exclamations of “wow!” This is a rather petty complaint, in my opinion, especially when such people claim that the movie glosses over necessary details in favour of an ironical expedience in an epic proportion.

Mystery is exciting and explanation is boring. Just because Avatar would rather project unbridled spectacle instead of dwelling on the nuances of bioluminescence doesn’t make the film unintelligent and the astute individual demanding reason superior. What is necessary to know is told while what is unnecessary is left to imagination. Correct me if I’m wrong, but District 9 never featured a lecture series on the reverse engineering of hyper advanced alien technology and Star Trek didn’t have much patience to explain what Red Matter was all about. For this reason, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to excuse Avatar from choosing not to tell us why there’s a floating mountain range. “Why do the Na’vi have omniscient hair extensions,” you ask? “So that they can commune with nature,” replies Avatar. “And don’t worry about asking for a demonstration,” continues Avatar, “as I’ve already arranged for this premier expedition through Pandora to pass through an indigenous technicolour dragon’s nest near the summit of the floating Mt. Everest.” Who says elucidation and excitement can’t go hand in hand?

There’s more to this extended second act than just a thinly veiled flaunting of technology through a tour of Pandora’s wilderness, though. While it would be remiss of me to say that every second spent with Jake, Neytiri, and the Na’vi characterizes, certainly every sequence does. Avatar creates the impression that these creatures that don’t exist and never will (at least as far as humanity is concerned) have their own unique language, with the additional suggestion that there are distinct dialects between tribes. There’s also a sense of ritual and ceremony, a somewhat chieftain administrative structure within the tribes, and even a mythology regarding the most powerful flying beast in the sky. There’s more invention in the Na’vi than champions of the “Dances with Smurfs” argument would have you believe. I would even say that the characterization of the Na’vi as a whole is as rich as a 2h40m film could possibly allow, especially considering how this is a completely unique science fiction universe with no other popular direct sources or exploits on other media from which to draw. Virtually every superhero movie and action/adventure/science fiction blockbuster of the last decade has a rich history from which to establish a film franchise; Cameron’s started from scratch.

Because the intent is to rally the audience behind an entire (fictional) culture and not just a motley handful of leading figures, the development of the main characters isn’t necessarily a significant demand. Think of it as a deliberate or purposeful thinning. Jake’s role as the double agent initially infiltrating the Na’vi before switching teams assures him the most pronounced arc, predictable as it may be thanks to Avatar’s heart being a story well told. Neytiri herself is the second deepest, though admittedly not that much deeper than the rest of her peers as her only additional layer stems from the internal miasma resulting from the clash of betrayal and deception with duty (again, predictable).

The remaining players, Augustine, Quaritch, and Parker, are completely immutable, their only real job being to thicken the proceedings with barbed exchanges and a humourous well timed line here and there. They’re all rigid archetypes of the egghead, warmonger, and pen-pusher (respectively), but it doesn’t make their portrayals any less exceptional and effective. Sigourney Weaver does well as the passionate ecologist with a hard edge and smoking habit, and Stephen Lang’s relentless aggressiveness and gargantuan Patton-esque ego strikes that perfect balance of charming ruthlessness. Giovanni Ribisi, however, is too underused for his character’s conniving to impart any consequence within the film, let alone any lasting image after the fact. He does nothing beyond occasionally express impatience for diplomatic methods and coin the word “unobtainium.”

The final character of note is Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy, a fighter pilot for the marines who feels compelled to defend the Na’vi when certain realities of Quaritch’s campaign become more than what she signed up for. She essentially follows the Ellen Ripley/Sarah Connor tradition of strong female leads in science fiction, except that she’s not exactly central to the proceedings, nor is she ever a particularly overpowering presence in the face of her male peers. All she ever really does is help the protagonists escape imprisonment and deliver a few pot shots against the big bad in the final battle before being utterly immolated.

Strangely, however, it’s because of this relatively minor character that an additional layer of Avatar is revealed to the audience. Certainly the political allegory isn’t exactly subtle, the anti-imperialist/pro-ecology streak being omnipresent from beginning to end, yet Trudy’s actions make Quaritch’s deliberate misrepresentation of the state of affairs on Pandora entirely justifiable. I’ve spoken with many people who claimed that the “we will fight terror with terror line” delivered by Quaritch in a rousing speech to a new batch of troops struck a false chord, as did many other scenarios where the word “terror” and any of its deviations were used. The fact is that Quaritch needed to spin the truth lest another mutinous action like Trudy’s abetment of his opposition occur. Whether or not the Na’vi are the most virtuous and docile alien tribe in existence or a pack of vicious and threatening savages is largely irrelevant, and such evidence to confidently suggest either conclusion is superfluous. Quaritch wasn’t convinced of his men’s loyalty, so he needed to engineer doubtless truths that commit them behind him. This completes the characterization of Quaritch’s brutality and the outpost of apparent human sheep on Pandora. Now all that’s left is for the two sides to do battle.

And fight they do. The marines steamroll through the jungle with their full air force in tow and a sweeping net of marines and mech suits on the ground, while the Na’vi patiently wait for the opportunity to make the strongest first strike possible, raining death on vibrant dragon from above supported by a charge on alien horseback. This is the most memorable action sequence of the year, stunningly rendered, visceral, and satisfying. The majority of the action takes place in the air where Pandora dragons pounce on unsuspecting human flyers and violently hurl them into rock faces as their pilots immediately strike down any exposed human soldier. There are so many moments of fantastic action splendour that detractors of the first two thirds should feel compelled to repent for their doubting of Cameron’s unparalleled technique. The 3D is so effortless that you could very well catch the teeth forcibly expelled from a soldier’s mouth by the nock of a Na’vi bow. Is it even possible to invest $16 better?

Yet for all the love and glowing adoration I have of this movie, I cannot in good conscience posit that it is entirely infallible. I do have complaints, but these may as well just be hairline fractures on the Colossus of Rhodes for how insignificant they are. The first is regarding the initial sketch of Jake Sully and his transformation from generic macho marine to humbled prince of the indigenous population seemingly overnight (well, to be fair it was over the course of three months). The human Jake we’re first introduced to appears to have been made modest thanks to the loss of his legs, but such humility evaporates the second after his first test drive in his Avatar. He’s once again just a grunt with a gun, overeager to spray bullets shouting “yeah, bitch, who’s your daddy now? Oorah!” Certainly it makes the before/after contrast more striking, but it still feels like a slight miscalculation. The second is with regards to the ceremony that occurs when the Na’vi attempt to transfer Augustine’s essence from her mortally wounded body to her Avatar. The concept is certainly novel, curious, and interesting, but the rhythmically chanting and waving bodies is something more easily equated with yoga than spirituality in my opinion. And finally, the music is somewhat underwhelming. I didn’t find Horner’s score to be particularly memorable, and even now I’m struggling to recall a familiar melody from the experience. On a side not, however, the rest of the sound design is superb. The mammoth IMAX sound system that floods the ear with audio from all trajectories creates a thick and deep ambient soundscape, especially during Jake’s lonely adventure through the darkened wilderness.

People keen to disparage Avatar at any opportunity will surely realize that I’ve neglected to write about the core story as a detriment, or even at any notable length up until this point in the review. The simple reason for this is that there’s nothing wrong with it. Avatar is far more about visual excitement than narrative, which is something that could be easily said for a lot of the monstrous entertainment hits in recent memory. For this reason, a focused and coherent story is far more useful than one that tries something too ambitious and consequently gets bogged down in its own indulgences and peculiarities. Star Trek, for example, tried to create a fresh narrative and failed as each new plot point seemed to create a brand new set of anomalies and contradictions that pulled some viewers out of the experience instead of further in. Both movies are technically impressive in scope, flair, and special effects, but the difference is that you can enjoy Avatar on a level of pure spectacle thanks to a safe story whereas Star Trek’s narrative inconsistencies could keep a person at a distance for the whole duration.

The best action/adventure movies use a simple story well told as a hook to lure people in while the thrilling world does the rest of the work. This doesn’t mean that the story is entirely without consequence and that it can be altogether omitted. If nothing else, the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen debacle at least serves to remind us that stories, at their most basic level of utility, are necessary for framing a movie. Not only is that what Avatar’s story needed to do; that’s what Star Trek and every other such movie that only got halfway to its goal needed to do. The other narrative quibbles, such as alleged derivativeness at best and flat out plagiarism at worst, do nothing to lessen the experience as far as I’m concerned. I can’t think of a better movie released in 2009 that is more thrilling, captivating, exiting, or imaginative, than Avatar. This is the best movie of 2009, one of the best movies of the decade, and one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Kick-Ass (Movie Review)

Originally written and posted on April 21, 2010.

Kick-Ass

As more and more time passes, I find myself wondering if North American audiences will ever tire of superheroes. Examinations of the subject have come in all manner of flavours in recent years, ranging from the traditional exploits of BatmanSpider-Man, and Superman (with varying degrees of gravitas,) to the infrastructural implications of Hancock, and now to a sort of deconstruction with Watchmen and Defendor. I’m obliged to maintain enthusiasm for these films until Iron Man 2 at the very least, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult not to feel mired in the genre’s apparent over-saturation, to say nothing of sequel fever. But until May 7th finally rolls around, we have Kick-Ass, a movie that places a trio of unlikely heroic candidates in the sights of ruthless crime lords, delightful gore and all.

In a city that has the profile of New York and the street level of Toronto, a frustrated and hopelessly dim teenager named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) wonders why nobody has ever attempted to don the guise of a superhero and fight injustice in real life. To learn the answer for himself, he buys a green wet suit, calls himself “Kick-Ass,” and promptly begins to agitate local thugs with his asinine shrieks and flails. After a YouTube video of one of his mildly successful exploits attracts the attention of two professional vigilantes, “Big Daddy” (Nicolas Cage) and “Hit Girl” (Chloe Grace Moretz), as well as the mysterious “Red Mist” (Christopher-Mintz Plasse), Kick-Ass finds himself deeply entangled in the affairs of crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong), and discovers firsthand that the glamourous life of a superhero is not all its cracked up to be.

Even from its very first previews, something felt a bit off about Kick-Ass. While it may just be semantics, the notion of ordinary citizens dressing up in ridiculous costumes and taking it upon themselves to fight crime feels less like a superhero satire and more like a garden variety vigilantism premise. Certainly this is more or less exactly what being a superhero is, especially when there isn’t anything particularly “super” about the hero in question, but these thoughts aren’t exactly mitigated over the course of the film.

The simple fact is that Kick-Ass has two tightropes to walk: The far more pressing tonal tightrope between Superbad banter, Spider-Manspoofing, and the visceral punch of Sin City, and the subtle somewhat intellectual tightrope that must examine things like character, motivation, ethics, etc. And while I will admit that Kick-Ass for the most part deftly dances along the former, it has virtually nothing to say about the latter. Mind you it’s not as if anyone is going to be bothered by this fact. When Kick-Ass isn’t wearing its Screwball Comedy hat, it’s nimbly eviscerating mobsters with whatever sharp edge is currently within the reach of its 11-year old female protagonist instead. And odds are highly likely that those into the former are as much into the latter as well (or vice versa), especially if you’re between the ages of 14 to 25 with that pesky Y chromosome.

My issue with Kick-Ass is that in its haste to appeal to such a narrow demographic with every tool at its disposal, it has absolutely no desire to strike any balance whatsoever with the rest of the movie-going populace. The ingredients for a widely successful movie are all here: humour both sharp and subversive, action both visceral and immaculately captured, characters both charismatic and likable, and a premise both novel and inventive. But the presentation with little to no patience for the details which can really make a production sparkle is so aggressively puerile that those hoping for a bit more will be sorely disappointed. Kick-Asshas so much going for it, yet is content to squander it all trying to impress the people that it has already captured hook, line and sinker.

Characters like Big Daddy and Hit Girl are prime examples. They’re both superbly portrayed and the two behind the costumes are clearly having a blast. But Kick-Ass‘ fascination with the idea of having an 11-year old girl single-handedly bring down an entire ring of organized crime in the present means that questions of why she was conditioned to do this in the past and the implications of the idea beyond the theatre are avenues left unexplored. To be fair there is a shade of backstory which is presented as panels in Big Daddy’s comic book diary that trace the main details of the matter, including the death of a loved one, corruption, and five years of wrongful imprisonment. But inconsistencies peppered throughout the film poke holes in the explanation, such as the revelation that Hit Girl has three million dollars tucked away in a duffle bag somewhere and that Big Daddy somehow found the time between incarceration, training and brainwashing to generate enough to income to buy an arsenal large enough to wage war on Europe (indeed they loot their quarry, but would that really be enough?) Even Big Daddy himself seems willing to accept his daughter as more of a weapon or tool than an actual person, although I suppose a person pressuring their child into living out their failed dreams as a crime fighter is better than pressuring their child into their failed dreams as an actor or athlete, if only because it would at least be altruistic.

Yet is Kick-Ass “morally reprehensible?” Much like Léon from 1994, Kick-Ass suffers from its decision to place a prepubescent girl at the centre of a maelstrom of criminal chaos and violence. However unlike LéonKick-Ass‘ characterizations aren’t strong enough to merit such a bold move. At least Mathilda (played by the young Natalie Portman) had control over actions. She made the choice to enter the death dealing trade herself (and with good reason too), whereas Hit Girl is locked into her role, presumably out of fear from being murdered in her sleep by Big Daddy for such insubordination. Mathilda also displayed more depth. The only dimension to Hit Girls’ persona is her ability to enjoy murder as much as a normal 11 year old girl would enjoy hopscotch or a jump rope. Rest assured, then, that Kick-Ass can’t possibly be morally reprehensible because that would require a conscious decision on the filmmaker’s part to be provocative or challenging, and wanton violence for its own sake just doesn’t cut it

Juggling between several disparate tones and attitudes is a tricky balancing act, and Kick-Ass generally succeeds quite well. Scenes between ultra-violence and exposition tend to gel seamlessly thanks to moments of comedic downtime between Dave Lizewski and his friends, and even the requisite romantic angle between Dave and Katie Demeaux (Lyndsy Fonseca) manages to find a home. Nonetheless, there are still a couple of stumbles. For one,Kick-Ass never manages to mesh its candid demonstration of what it would really be like for superheroes and evildoers to attack each other brutally by keeping all the gore and colourful language in tact within the constraints of the real world. To the film’s credit, it ends up jumping the shark more subtly than most by reserving the truly inane shenanigans for the end, but the impact of Kick-Ass getting his ass kicked several times is still lessened when you’re constantly getting repulsed by absurdity. However I’m willing to forgive this quibble simply because I was quite fond of a certain scene neatly juxtaposing Kick-Ass sissy fighting his rival while the fierce “real” battle between Hit Girl and her rival raged on in the adjacent room.

What I can’t forgive is the sarcastic voiceovers by Kick-Ass himself that narrate the entire film. There’s a particular scene where Kick-Ass appears to be about to meet his demise and the entire film grinds to a halt so that his voiceover can reassure us that because he’s currently narrating events, he can’t possibly end up dead after the ordeal. This is a baffling decision on the filmmaker’s part. Here we have a movie that is rather unique, exploring uncharted territory within a genre that has mostly been worn thin by telling a story that is interesting and largely original, and the film endeavours to spoil itself. To what end? So that it may satirize and dismiss an unsavoury trope by employing and drawing attention to it? Rarely have I ever witnessed a film make use of such a crippling blunder for no other reason than perhaps to reassure itself.

Kick-Ass is not perfect, then. There are several flaws which seem to permeate the entire production, many of them seeming to have been glossed over in favour of focusing on a sharp and novel presentation. Yet as flawed and brainless as it is, the discrete and perhaps even insidious manner in which it conceals its imperfections enables a fairly high degree of entertainment to be extracted from the proceedings. If you enjoy ultra-violence for its own sake regardless of whether or not it’s depicted in a rational and legitimate context, and if you find an ostentatious, juvenile, and brazen presentation agreeable, then by all means watch Kick-Ass. It certainly succeeds in delivering what it offers. Just don’t expect anything more.

For further viewing on the subject of vigilante crime fighters dressed in ridiculous costumes, Andrew G. recommends watching the 2009 independent Canadian film “Defendor,” starring Woody Harrelson. It’s a far more mature and appealing treatment of roughly the same material. Keep in mind that’s mature as in “stronger narrative/theme” and not “more blood, guts, and dismemberment.”