By Jason Apuzzo. I wanted LFM’s regular readers to know that although I’ve been busy of late, I’m still keeping close tabs on what’s happening at your local multiplex. Here are some micro-reviews of important recent releases:
The Avengers
Sparkling interactions among the characters, an electrifying sequence aboard a floating aircraft carrier, cheeky good humor, and another breakout performance by Tom Hiddleston as Loki lift Marvel’s The Avengers far above conventional comic book fare – to the point that it’s already become its own event in pop mythology. Several things hold The Avengers back from being a gold-plated classic, though: trite assertions of moral equivalency between the good guys and the bad guys, cringe-inducing scenes involving goofy aliens, and a third act copied (lamely) from Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Still, you sense that this is what comic book movies were supposed to be like all along.
LFM GRADE: A-
Battleship
After a dreadful first act involving a soccer game and a chicken burrito (don’t ask), Battleship settles in and delivers some exciting combat sequences – especially when the USS Missouri gets hauled out of mothballs to exchange ear-shattering salvos with an invading alien cruiser. Director Peter Berg – the son of a naval historian – takes the tactical, cat-and-mouse aspects of naval warfare (and of Hasbro’s board game) seriously, although he can’t summon a credible performance out of Taylor Kitsch – assuming that’s even possible. Kudos to Berg, however, for featuring real-life combat veterans in the cast like Col. Gregory Gadson, an inspiring Iraq war vet and amputee who brings an aura of seriousness to the movie’s otherwise over-the-top scenario. And if that’s not enough for you, there’s also Brooklyn Decker in a tank top.
LFM GRADE: B
The Dictator
A treasure-trove of great gags at the expense of petty Middle Eastern tyrants is drowned away in a deluge of mindless vulgarity and gross-out humor, all of which probably should’ve netted this film an NC-17 rating. Writer-director-star Sacha Baron Cohen also throws in an obnoxious closing speech in which he essentially equates America with Middle Eastern dictatorships. Is this guy kidding? Take your dictators-are-brainless-narcissists act to Syria, Sacha, and see how well it plays with the local gentry. A major disappointment, and probably Cohen’s final shot at mainstream success.
LFM GRADE: C-
Posted on May 22nd, 2012 at 5:27pm.
This is from an older post of mine on a different site regarding my analysis of “The Avengers” There are some mild spoilers:
I was very impressed with “The Avengers”. While the film is not a political film, it is still quite pro-American and has a very right of center mentality in its content. I am only speaking for the final product, not the makers, actors, writers etc. For example WITH SPOILERS:
1. The organization SHIELD answers to a Global council. HOWEVER, the film makes it clear that SHIELD is AMERICAN based and AMERCIAN managed (in term of its personnel/operatives). In addition, the audience witnesses the Global council make numerous wrong decisions that the SHIELD operatives and Avengers must either ignore/ go against/ or deal with.
2. The Avengers team includes
a. Captain America: the patriotic American super soldier who is also a man of faith (AND HE MAKES HIS FAITH CLEAR), who eventually developes into the “leader” of the group.
b. Iron Man: a patriotic/pro-military, American billionaire (1 percenter OMG), capitalist, philanthropist who has defeated terrorists in the middle east, bad mouthed big government intrusion, and has even said out loud that he is tired of the “liberal agenda”. This character plays a significant role in saving humanity.
c. Thor: Warrior of Asgard who believes in taking the fight to the enemy without ever considering appeasment.
d. Hawkeye: honorable and brave AMERICAN covert operative (Black Widow herself says that she no longer consider herself Russian and that the American operative has played a part in her developing salvation) ***** Hulk for once does not spend a majority of the film taking on the American military and focuses his rage on a real threat.
3. At one point, Captain America questions whether we really treasure old fashioned AMERICAN patriotism (Jingoism to the leftists) anymore and he is told that what is we NEED right now.
4. At one point Nick Fury tells the global council that it is dangerous to ignore the fact that we are at war (according to the makers of GI Joe:The Rise of Cobra, the term war should not even be usd in such films). This line is interesting since weeks earlier people within the Obama Administration claimed with pride that the War on Terror is over. In addition he tells the global council that when fighting a war, we must put our faith in the WARRIORS (not the politicians, diplomats, journalists, or peace envoys ?)
5. The villian claims that his actions are based on the idea that freedom only makes things worse for the populace and that it would be best for the populace to submit to a figure who willtake on the burden of making the decisions for them, thus making their lives easier. VERY INTERESTING POINT OF VIEW AND SOMEHOW EERILY FAMILIAR. Interesingly enough it is CAPTAIN AMERICA who not only literally and figuratively stands against these views when the villian makes his case; he inspires many other people to do the same. They stand right behind CAPTAIN AMERICA in the defense of freedom.
6. When the world is attacked (with New York being the staging point for the siege) the audience sees the AMERICAN military stand and fight right alongside the Avengers in the defense of freedom from tyranny/annihlation.
7. Finally the audience even gets to see a DEMOCRAT senator shamelessly play the moral equivalence card by publicly claiming that the heroic Avengers (those who fought to save the world) are just as responsible as the villains for the destruction that has taken place and the Avengers must be punished/pay a price as well. This purposely does not play well with the audience.
8. On a final note, the concept of taking the war to the enemy in retaliation for an attack is actually encouraged. In the wrods of Iron Man, ” If we cannot protect the world, we will certainly AVENGE IT”. (What no lecture how violence only begets violence and therefore it is pointless to go on the offensive when dealing with an enemy? Or no lecture on if we go on the offensive, then we will be just like them?? I am shocked!)
*****Taking all of this into account, i find it interesting that a film with such messages and ideas would be making $463 million domestic/ $1.2 Billion worldwide and still going strong. Are we not told repeatedly by the liberal elites that such messages/themes/points of view wil be ignored by audiences; ESPECIALLY OVERSEAS?
Nicely put, Omar! I love your contributions here …
Mr. Apuzzo: Thank you again for taking the time to respond to my posts (the Battleship post as well) . Practically every time i post on this site, you take the time to respond. I am grateful for your time and support. I will continue to work to make sure that my posts are not a waste of anyone’s time. Thank you again sir.
This post in an analysis of “Battleship” (again, based on older post of mine):
Was it as good as Avengers? No? Do i still reccomend it? Definitely yes. While the film would have benefitted from a better leading character (Imagine having Liam Neeson’s character take center stage and kicking alien butt while the Taylor Kitsch character being a strong supporting character instead) and having more logic (the alien attacks are sometimes inconsistent), there is alot to reccomend. For example:
1. Great special effects courtesy of ILM.
2. Rousing/gripping musical score by Steve Jablonsky (of the Transformers series)
3. Fun fast paced action sequences
4. DID NOT RECALL SEEING SHAKY CAM IN THIS FILM.
Importantly:
1. The film is definitely patriotic/Pro-American. The naval wargames may be international, but the film does not hesitate to show that the AMERICANS are taking the lead (and not from behind). In addition, when the action begins, it’s the AMERICAN forces who are primarily put in the middle of it. In adition, there are many loving shots of the American flag throughout the movie and it is done without cynicism.
2. This film is very pro-military. They are shown to be brave, honorable, self-sacrificing, and unwilling to give up to the enemy. This ranges from those who are currently serving to a disabled Afghanisgtan war vet (who never bad mouths the War on Terror) to past service members. All get their moment to shine with honor and dignity.
3. This film places an importance on the WARRIOR ethic. In this film, one must be wiling to take a stand, be pro-active, and fight back (intelligently). If a charater is one who simply whines, cowers, or expects others to sacrifice for him/her (ahem certain scientists and politicians) then he/she is not portrayed favorably at all.
4. This film is NOT a butt kissing tribute to Obama’s presidecy. Whereas “Indepenence Day” tried to glamorize Clinton (in a very superficial manner) with the Bill Pullman character, we do get a quick glimpse of Obama on the television notifying the public of the threat. However, the audience sees his Secretary of Defense and other Administraion officials at the pentagon basically clueless on how to actually deal with the threat.***** IN FACT, AT ONE POINT, LIAM NEESON’S CHARACTER (ADMIRAL SHANE) IS SEEN CHEWING OUT OBAMA’S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR TRYING TO PUSH A USELESS TACTIC THAT WILL NEEDLESSLY SACRIFICE BRAVE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY. HE GOES AS FAR AS TO TELL THE OBAMA OFFICIAL THAT UNLESS HE IS WILLING TO PUT HIS OWN BUTT ON THE LINE, HE SHOULD STOP TRYING TO FORCE SUCH USELESS AND DESTRUCTIVE TACTICS AND LET THE WARRIORS ON THE GROUND (OR WATER) DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. VERY TIMELY AND RELEVENT.
*** I hope that this film improves domestically. Having said that, it has not escaped my attention that while BATTLESHIP is nowhere near AVENGERS numbers overseas, it is still has grossed almost $230 million over seas (which is better than the UN centric/”this is an OBAMA world” GI:Joe The Rise of Cobra and ‘Truth, Justice All That Stuff” Superman Returns. AND THESE GUYS HAVE BIGGER NAME RECOGNITION THAN BATTLESHIP). I was led to believe that by tuning down the Americanism, overseas sales would be better? That is what the die hard leftisits in Hollywood say.
Thanks for your analysis as always, Omar!
Avengers – A for Outstanding. Enjoyed this movie from beginning to end
The Dictator – F- Sacha Baron Cohen has blown it. Not remotely funny for a single second then he throws in the left wing occupy crap at the end thus essentially sealing his fate. I’ll never intentionally pay to see another movie he’s in.
Yes, I’m done with Cohen. The end speech was absolutely awful, and shattered whatever limited good will I had to that point … which wasn’t very much. I gave the film a C- basically for the boldness of taking on the subject matter in this way, but not for much else. The Avengers was fun.
Hey, Jason — it’s good read your stuff here at Libertas. I’ve been reading your work at the Huffington Post, and I like it — especially the piece on Sword and Sandal movies.
I couldn’t agree more with your take on “The Avengers.” I loved it for its sense of heroism and style, but it definitely needed a little more of a thematic backbone. If it was only a little more “about” something, I could’ve embraced it.
I’ve been pretty busy too — just got a new place, and I’m getting married in 17 days! What a trip — I love it.
Keep writing, Jason.
Congratulations on your wedding, Vince! That’s great news.
Yes, on The Avengers front, I thought that an opportunity was missed to teach Loki a lesson about freedom. I was waiting for the big speech at the end, when someone, maybe Captain America or Nick Fury, would tell him how wrong he is … but it never came. A ball was dropped there. Given all the extra footage that was shot, possibly it ended up on the cutting room floor.
Anyway, thanks for your contributions here, as always Vince! I love interacting with you and everybody here, and thanks also for following us on Twitter …
Can’t speak to Battleship or The Dictator but The Avengers reminded the 8 year old in me why he fell in love with movies.
I might do a post about this later, Jim, but last night I actually got to see a lot of key props from The Avengers like Thor’s hammer, Captain America’s uniform and shield, Loki’s … scepter of power, or whatever it is. Anyway, it was a lot of fun! I did actually feel like a little kid, looking at all the stuff. The Tesseract was a bit underwhelming in person, but Nick Fury really has a cool coat …
A B for Battleship?! Oh, come now…something in a D would be more appropriate.
No film featuring the USS Missouri trading shots with an alien battlecruiser and 2 hours of Brooklyn Decker in a tank top rates a D. Please check your red blood cell count.
My blood is fine. My tolerance for terminal stupidity at the cinema, on the other hand, is low and has been for some time. But that could just be me.
Haven’t seen “Battleship,” but I have to take exception with one aside in the review where you say about Peter Berg that “he can’t summon a credible performance out of Taylor Kitsch – assuming that’s even possible.” For five years Taylor Kitsch delivered a nuanced, memorable portrayal of the character Tim Riggins in the series “Friday Night Lights,” a series remarkable in its emotional and sociological realism. (There probably aren’t a dozen movies a year the equal of an average episode of that series.) I can’t speak to Kitsch’s performance in “Battleship,” but to dismiss his work on FNL so offhandedly is disappointing considering the general quality of the criticism on this site. Also, the trailer for “Savages” makes the movie look as if it is true to Don Winslow’s modern Southern California thriller, and Kitsch seems to be perfectly cast as Chon, one of the two protagonists in what Janet Maslin in the NYT called a “new-wave drug-dealing partnership” that runs afoul of the Mexican cartel. It has the potential to be a breakout performance for Kitsch, and i look forward to seeing Stone’s adaptation of the book.
Phil, I appreciate your thoughts here, and I have no special grudge against Taylor Kitsch – but please understand something. Between John Carter and Battleship I’ve sat through about 4 hours and $450 millions worth of Taylor Kitsch movies so far this year, and he’s been simply awful. At no point during either film did he provide a single interesting or unexpected moment. And while I don’t blame him exclusively for the disaster that was John Carter, nor for the disappointment that was Battleship, the industry generally is blaming him – and nothing I’ve seen thus far inspires me to watch his performances in other material. Basically, he’s getting incredible opportunities and doing very little with them – unlike other, better stars of his age range like Chris Hemsworth or Shia LaBeouf.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Jason. I’m not entirely sure the industry is blaming Kitsch in general for the two films you mention. For instance, the box office debacle of the John Carter film has been attributed in more than one place primarily to the terrible marketing campaign and the management turmoil at its studio. (And I can’t think off the top of my head of a worse marketing campaign for a movie, or a re-title of material that told less about its source.) And Harry Knowles of ‘Ain’t it Cool News’ is a Burroughs devotee and thought highly of the film (as have others who are fans of the source material).
As far as ‘Battleship’ goes, Anthony Lane (in a masterpiece of a New Yorker review that had me laughing out loud throughout) singles out Kitsch favorably, saying: “Our leading man, as in “John Carter,” is the beauteous Taylor Kitsch, who, unlike some of his contemporaries, has an affable gleam in his eye that tells us precisely what he thinks of the vast, unearthly follies in which he finds himself.” Among those contemporaries I’d include Shia LaBeouf (whose blandness, for me, was instrumental in dragging down ‘Wall Street’ as well as the scenes in his Indiana Jones turn).
Evaluating acting performances is a primarily subjective exercise (short of being a person like Stella Adler) and there’s obviously room to cordially disagree. I think it’s unfortunate that Kitsch chose pop summer movie projects to present himself to a larger viewing audience. His work in FNL shows him to be much better than those films, but actors (and directors, etc.) have to pay the bills. Again, considering the quality of the trailer for ‘Savages’ as well as the buzz, I hope it’s the success Don Winslow’s work deserves to be and gives Kitsch the opportunity to do something besides summer movie material.
Thanks for your thoughts, Phil. Let me reiterate that I have nothing personal against the guy – he seems pleasant and hard-working. I just haven’t seen a lot there so far, and he’s been given some big chances that very few actors get. We’ll see what happens …