CAPTAIN AMERICA - THE FIRST AVENGER

Truth, justice and the non-spoiler way!

As his old theme tune goes 'When Captain America throws his mighty shield, All those who chose to oppose his shield must yield!'. However I must confess that as a kid just getting into comics, the Cap didn't exactly grab my attention the way Spider-Man, Batman, Judge Dredd and Dan Dare did, and this mighty shield business was part of the problem. Why did he have a shield but no sword? The two go together like Laurel and Hardy, fish and chips, Frank and Stein... And of course, being in the UK, I was naturally more interested to find out what this Captain Britain bloke was all about. 

Now appropriately enough this childhood reactions to Captain America actually neatly sums up the two biggest challenges for bringing one of the most venerable heroes in the Marvel Universe to the big screen. A shield doesn't have the same cinematic cool as a Batarang, and chucking it about possesses a risk of looking daft that web-slinging does not.

However this is small potatoes compared to the issue of the character's inherent patriotism. Given the somewhat, shall we say, mixed opinion of America on the modern world stage, there was a big danger of alienating audiences outside of the US. Now admittedly, in his comics the Captain has frequently seen taking a critical stance of jingoism and where national pride slips into aggression and greed, but as movie versions of superheroes tend towards presenting simplistic versions of the comics characters, there was a danger of the silver screen Cap becoming a parade of super-powered flag-waving.

But fear not true believers! Joe Johnston's take on the classic character artfully handles both these issues beautifully, bringing us a Captain America who symbolising good hearted values that everyone can identify with and making that shield action truly mighty! 

Now Joe Johnston has garnered a reputation for being something of a journey man director, however it has to be said he did a marvelous job with The Wolf Man last year. Yes, Universal's reboot of Larry Talbot's tale wasn't a perfect movie, but considering the mangled and troubled production Johnston inherited, it's remarkable the film turned out so well. Similarly Captain America: The First Avenger has been through the fires of development hell, however this time the behind the scenes problems appear to have been resolved by the time Joe first called 'action!'. And the resulting movie is simply so entertaining and loving crafted, I think we may well see Johnston shaking free of the journeyman tag and a reassessment of his past movies. 

The film tells the tale of the transformation of Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans) into the titular shield-slinging hero and his attempts to thwart the plans of world domination by rogue Nazi deep science division HYDRA led by Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Yes folks, this is an origin story but it is to the movie's considerable credit that you hardly notice - as the character of Rogers is so appealing even before his transformation, with Evans being supremely likeable in the role. And the plot delivers enough action before he truly becomes the Captain that you're never sat there thinking 'just get on with it!'. 

In many respects, it's a classic David and Goliath style story for even after being supercharged by the super solider serum, Roger is still the archetypal little guy making a stand against the bullies of the world. Of course as an offshoot of the Nazis, HYDRA provide a villain everybody across the world can hate, but it's the presentation of the Captain as a true everyman that neatly transcends the potentially troublesome patriotic boundaries.

But like many of the better superhero flicks, the Red Skull, as another product of the super solider serum, provides a villain that mirrors our hero but is also his polar opposite - Rogers wants to save the world while Schmidt wants to crush it, which further underlines our hero's humanity and virtues.

Now Schmidt is brought brilliantly to life by the ever reliable Hugo Weaving. And while I have some misgivings over the look of the Red Skull in this movie - the classic incarnation in the comics is alot more bonier and craggier - I can live with the fact that he has the same colour and texture as tandoori chicken as the make-up work allows Weaving facial acting to show through. Heavier prostheses and/or more digital make-up could well buried the performance. 

And as well as good performances from Evans and Weaving, we have fine support from the rest of the cast. Tommy Lee Jones is marvelous fun as Col. Chester Phillips - a craggy military old man figure which steers clear of the expected stereotype by giving him some of the funnier one liners in the script. Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter makes a refreshing female lead who proves she can hold her own against the boys, sporting more character and getting far more action than the usual ladies in a superhero flick. Dominic Cooper gives a great turn as Howard Stark and although his mannerisms recall his onscreen son Robert Downey Jr, he gives the character an individual spin that make him more than just a 1940s Tony Stark. Plus we have Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones putting in scene stealing performances are Dr Erskine and Dr Zola. 

Overall the movie looks the business too - the Captain America costume evolves nicely throughout the film and its final form is both true to the original design yet manages to look realistic. And at this point I should mention the shield work - the story rather nicely explains why the Captain has it and how he discovers its many uses in combat.

As you'd expect from a director who cut his teeth in FX work, the action and big set pieces look fabulous. However what really makes Captain America: The First Avenger stand out from all the other superhero blockbusters is the period setting. Now there's great sets and retro tech props that bring the world of the '40s vividly to life, but the real fun comes from the fact that as well trading in the expected four colour fisticuffs of the comics, this film also makes great use of the WWII setting and so we have a host of scenes that recall war movies of the past. Hence we have chases through misty Germany forests, snowy action at a compound in the Alps, prisoners of war staging a break out, and even aerial pathos as a doomed airman has one last chat with his sweetheart over the crackling radio. There's even a cheeky line that sound suspiciously like a reference to the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark! 

Speaking of references, there's plenty of connections to the other movies in the Marvel franchise. I've already mentioned the Iron Man link, but also there's also strong connective tissue to Thor and The Incredible Hulk. Yes folks, this Avengers business is all tying together rather nicely! And make you stick around for the now traditional post credits bit which sets the scene for what is coming next summer when all these heroes share a screen.

But how does Captain America - The First Avenger stack up against his Avengers brethren? Well, obviously it's far better than the obviously born of a troubled production Incredible Hulk, and also it's far leaner than the somewhat rambling Iron Man 2. However where you place it next to the original Iron Man outing and Thor will largely depend on which hero best fits your taste. Certainly these movies are three of kind, delivering the same brand of superhero spectacle with plenty of wit and a warm heart. 

And  it's definitely a close run thing between the three - which itself is a testament to the quality of Captain America -The First Avenger. Now for me, Thor still has the top spot but then I have long standing love of Norse mythology. Iron Man loses a few marks for having a weak final villain, whereas if I have a criticism of Captain America, it's the fact that I felt we could have done with just one more sequence with showing the Cap and his commandos battling HYDRA before the final show-down.

However considering the movie already has a two hours plus running time, another dust-up may well have spoiled the flow of the narrative.  For as it is the film flies by, which is the mark of perfect pacing. And also this niggle is perhaps more reflective of the fact that I simply enjoyed the movie so much I just want to see more of the Cap doing his stuff. And very tellingly, especially that throwing his mighty shield!

THE LOSERS (2010)

It never ceases to amaze me the way Hollywood movies appear in clusters. I mean, they are like buses - you wait ages for an old school action flick and then three turn up at once. Spooky isn‘t it - it’s almost as though the studios are packed full of uninspired dullards who are desperately leaping on any bandwagon and stealing ideas of each other left, right and centre!

Seriously though, this year’s blockbuster season seems to jam-packed with maverick tough guys on dangerous missions - we have the A Team bringing their plans together again, and the Expendables which seems to be the hard man equivalent of a Universal monster rally, raining testosterone on theatres over the next few months.

But before either of these pair flex their pecs, we have The Losers. Being neither an incarnation of a beloved ‘80s show, nor sporting an all shootin’. all fightin’ roster of tough tits icons, The Losers is very much the underdog. Yes, it is based on a well regarded comic book, by Andy Diggle and Jock, but like Kick-Ass it’s a title that is pretty much unknown outside the comics reading world. So there’s every chance, this movie’s title is going to be a prediction of its box office fate. And naturally if you call your film The Losers you are just begging assorted wags and smart arses to make the crack; “hey dude, the review is, like, the title.”

Now right off the bat, let me say I had a ton of fun with The Losers and while I can see it finishing in third place in the box office stakes, I will predict that it's going to win a handsome cult following and quite possible will be remembered long after The A Team and the Expendables are forgotten. Stallone and Neeson may be the big guns, and are sure to soak up an arsehole amount of ticket sales, but equally, there’s every chance that both movies will be typically blockbuster fare i.e. flawed and instantly forgettable.

The plot is the usual action flick nonsense. Jeffery Dean Morgan is Colonel Clay, leader of a specialist unit of kick-ass merchants. We have the brooding Roque (Idris Elba or Stringer Bell to Wire heads), the typically silent but utterly deadly expert sniper Cougar (Oscar Jaenada), vehicle expert Pooch (Columbus Short), and finally Jensen (Chris Evans), the wise cracking tech guy. After a raid on a drug baron goes tragically wrong, the guys are believed dead and blamed for the carnage. Cue Zoe Saldana, a mysterious lady who offers to bankroll the guys' revenge on the man who framed them, rogue CIA boss Max (Jason Patric).

Now the ins and outs of the story need not detain us too much here. It makes as much sense as it needs to and moves along at a breakneck pace. There’s all the expected twists and turns, threaded around plenty of action and liberally laced with quips. The Losers is well aware of the ridiculousness of its storyline and revels in it. It plays up the comedy just enough to stay the right side of self parody and at the same time treats the action seriously enough to make the set pieces thrilling.

And there are some excellent set pieces on display here too; they may tend towards the absurd and are utterly unbelievable, but they are massive amounts of fun. I won’t spoil any of them but they are the kind of capers that have you simultaneously gasping and chuckling.

Any time it looks like the pace is going to flag, or the audience is in danger of having time to reflect on the implausibility of the plot or the many macho clichés in the script, either something explodes or we get long lingering shots of Zoë Saldana. Yep, this is a guy’s film through and through, and the film makers know it.

Now the plot may be the usual action drivel, but it tries hard to make up for this by being energetic and inventive in the carnage it throws at the screen.However the magic ingredient that really makes The Losers work is the cast. They are well defined and likeable, each with their own distinct personalities and have excellent chemistry with each other. In short, they really sell you on the story as daft as it is.

All perform well, even Jaenada as the stereotypically taciturn sniper manages to imbue his character with considerable charisma. Colombus Short is very likeable as Pooch, the human heart of the team and Idris Elba makes for a great argumentative second in command, bouncing well off Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s Clay.

Zoë Saldana fares the worst, as the movie doesn’t give her much room to show off her acting chops. Her character is somewhat underwritten as the script seems more concerned with portraying her shapely legs as the road to Heaven. However what she does get, she performs well handling the drama and the fight scenes with equal aplomb. And even though the camera spends a good deal of time ogling her, she manages to look iconic in a way that pout-merchants like Megan Fox never can.

However it’s Chris Evans who really steals the show. His Jensen is equally at home with comic timing as he is with the tough guy dynamics. His performance really shines out, despite some very stiff competition and the sheer charisma of his turn in The Losers bodes well for his forthcoming turn as Captain America.

But despite some creative set pieces and an accomplished cast, The Losers is not without its problems. Its sheer energy is enough to propel a causal viewer over the cracks but the flaws are still there. And undoubtedly for viewers, they may well be deal-breakers.

The first is a bit more of a niggle rather than an outright botch. And to be honest, depending on your taste, it could be a strength rather than a weakness. I’m talking about lead villain Max - and the thing here is that Jason Patric plays him in very broad comedy strokes. Don’t get me wrong, he’s highly amusing and it makes a change to see an arch villain doing about his business in a breezy have-fun manner rather than the more usual scowling I’m-dead-evil-me theatrics. However he is having such a ball delivering the quippage, his scenes felt a little out of place; they work but tonally I thought they just didn't quite match the rest of the movie.

But as I said depending on your taste, it could go either way. I’ve no doubt that Patric’s performance is going to run the full gamut of reactions; some will see him as a highlight, some will feel he sinks the movie single-handed, while others, like myself, will tend to think that director Sylvain White should have told him to dial the performance down a couple of notches.

However, I suspect it was old Sylv who was telling Patric to keep on ramping it up in the first place. Because the major flaws in The Losers clearly emanate from the director’s chair. Basically what lets the movie down is the editing and the choice of music. Clearly White is aiming to deliver the same high octane over-the-top thrills of the likes of the Crank films and Shoot ‘Em Up with the cool kinetics of Edgar Wright or Quentin Tarantino.

However in his haste to be the hippest, most dynamic, young director in the block, he has made the mistake of throwing so much at the wall to see what sticks, at times you just can’t see the wall anymore. All too frequently, the quick edits and sundry other visual flourishes end up neutering rather than enhancing the action. Now in fairness, he’s a good enough director not to fall into the trap of editing the action sequences into total incomprehensible montages, but in his attempt to be cool, his visual stylistics get in the way of the actual thrills, and you end up feeling he’s ended up inadvertently pulling the punches of some scenes with his hipper-than-thou posturing.

Similarly the soundtrack doesn’t help either. Again, you can tell he’s going for the same eclectic assemblage of kick-ass tunes that Wright and Tarantino excel at creating for their movies. However he clearly doesn’t have the record collection of the afore mention pair, and although his choice of tunes is serviceable you can’t help thinking there were cooler tracks to pick.

However the quality of tunes aside, the real problem with the music is that like the cinematography, it’s all far too choppy. His use of music reminded me of the worst kind of noisy neighbours. Yes, that is a somewhat oblique analogy, but for those of you unfamiliar with the pleasures of living in less than salubrious neighbourhoods, let me explain…

Now the most common form of neighbour noise annoyance is the loud music pumping out at unsociable hours. And your better class of irritants next door will normally manage to decide to start cranking up the volume to ear splitting levels at 2 AM on the day when you absolutely, positively have to have an early start. However, the true grandmasters of the aural pollution have an extra added trick up their sleeves - they don’t just play their tunes too loud, they can’t exactly decide what they want to listen to. So you get snatches of hundreds of tracks without a single one ever making it all the way to the end, and most of them being started somewhere in the middle. It's like living next door to the annual Attention Deficit Disorder and Hyperactivity Social Mixer.

And it’s exactly this kind of irritating jump-cut musical jarring that the soundtrack to The Losers frequently lapses into. Some of his choices may well be top flight tunes, but we only hear twenty seconds, before he’s snatched it off the turntable and dumped us into the middle ten seconds something entirely different.

Both visually and musically, White is trying so hard to impress, to be cool, he ends up looking dorky. He’s simply trying too hard, and trying to look hip is a sure-fire way of missing the mark. In fact, he is so keen to be appear to be so cool he can’t see over his pelvis, I’m beging to suspect Sylvain White isn’t his real name at all and that his actually moniker is something like Fred Boggins.

However the upside of Sylv’s do-everything-all-at-once approach is that a decent amount actually does work. Hence as I said earlier, the movie has enough energy to skate over the rough patches. But as it stands, I can’t help feeling that had they dialled down the frenetics a little, or taken a less scattergun approach to the stylistics we would have had a far better movie.

At the end of the day, there is far more to enjoy here than to hate; and The Losers does hit the mark it is quite spectacular. And as the film has no aspirations other than to deliver big dumb action fun, it can get away with being a little too hyper. What’s really annoying though is that the problems with the editing and the soundtrack are both easily fixable - an experienced editor and a good musical director could easily raise the movie‘s quality very quickly. As it stands, we have a perfectly entertaining flick, but one destined more the cult and guilty pleasure categories. And with such a polish it could have been a great action picture rather than merely good fun.