Iconoclast: Has the 'Minions' joke started to wear thin?

In 2010 two CG animated films were released that were both about a super-villain who changes their ways and becomes something of a good-guy (to a certain extent).  One has a character arc which genuinely feels earned, that is rooted in comic-lore, and whilst it touches on clichés of romance, highlights that environment as much as choices can shape a person.  The other was chock full of sentimental clichés about the transformative power of the love of children, negative portrayals of people based on their body type, but had some biting satirical touches that probably went over most people's heads.  Neither film was a match for the quality that Pixar regularly put out (even in their weaker works), but both were well designed & animated, and had flashes of some genuinely memorable humour - as well as great turns from the lead actors.  If I needed to pick a film of the two which I felt had enough merits to be worthy of a franchise, I'd have picked the film which ironically didn't get one.

You see, despite the similarities between DreamWorks' 'Megamind' and Universal's 'Despicable Me', the former is the film that stands up to repeated viewing and has more narrative weight (at least to my mind, anyway).  To some extent there is little to separate the films - they have a similar premise, though Megamind is clearly coming from a comic-book influence (as evidenced by the presence of indestructible 'Superman'-like character Metro Man); Despicable Me is clearly trying to evoke 60's spy thrillers, and the black humour of those cult 'Spy vs Spy' comic strips from waaaay back.  When it comes down to it, the reason one film is celebrating the release of the third movie in its franchise, and the other is largely not discussed nowadays, is due to one simple reason: marketability.  You see, Despicable Me had something that Megamind neglected to add - a cute character that could be turned in to a toy and sold to kids.  That is what the little yellow, pill-shaped Minions from Universal's movie turned out to be.

I wonder if the makers of 'Megamind' kicked themselves after for not including cute, child-like, and inept comedy lackeys for their titular villain?

They have proven to be hugely popular, and understandably so.  They talk gibberish in high-pitched voices, they get up to mischief, they regularly injure themselves or other minions - and laugh at their expense afterwards.  They have big, round baby eyes (or eye, singular, in some cases), are slightly smaller than a 5-year-old child.  They tick two boxes that are a marketing man's dream - they are cute, and they are funny.  This probably seems like a cynical thing to say, but I can see how their appeal is more than a trick of commercialisation; in the Despicable Me films, they are genuinely funny - they capture something of the anarchic spirit that all children have, wanting to run riot, have accidents, break things as they explore boundaries - and laugh at the expense of someone who has stumbled and fell flat on their face or got in to trouble in the process.  These are the same things that make them appeal to grown-ups too - they're those things that you're not supposed to laugh at when you're a responsible adult, like flatulence or prat-falls, but you still find hilarious anyway.

In the first two Despicable Me films they are a welcome addition - they don't derail the film from its central narrative, they don't take the spotlight away from main character Gru (who is voiced in a fun turn from Steve Carrell); but they do offer relief when the story is in danger from getting too sentimental, when Gru starts fawning too much over his adopted daughters, or over his new love life.  In a film about a super-villain who finds a reason to be a good guy, they play an important part in helping the character and story keep its edge and mischievous moral core.  Outside of the films, away from that context, they start to lose that and become, well, annoying.

The Minion's popularity with adults has given rise to a completely irritating internet meme known as a 'Minion Quote'.  These are, somewhat ironically, not even quotes from the Despicable Me films - neither are they things that the Minions actually say (probably because a picture with "Lookit-oo, hahaha!" written on it, without the high-pitched sped up voice saying it, would look dumb and not at all funny).  Instead they've been used by people as a way of putting mean statements and opinions, but making them seem like they're a 'joke', because there's a picture of a Minion grinning mischievously next to it.  "Annoy me and you'll find I'm a murderous bitch!"  A statement like that would be grounds to call in the Police, or at the least some kind of psychiatric help in most cases - but, hey, if I put a picture of a Minion next to it then it's a 'joke', and it's perfectly ok!  No, it's just annoying, stop spamming my social network feeds with these stupid, annoying pictures.  To make it worse people have started photo-shopping the pictures of the Minions so that they're suddenly sexualised.  No, putting a minion in a leather-bound dominatrix suit isn't a statement of your confident sexuality - it makes you look like you've got the maturity of a barely adolescent child that can't even mention the word 'boobies' without descending in to a fit of giggles...

Pictures like these were fodder for meme creators to annoy the hell out of people with...

These 'memes' have taken something that was funny in the right context and made them become, for me at least, something that is now pretty annoying.  This doesn't bode well for their debut solo movie (titled, aptly, 'Minions').  While they're back in a child friendly, CG animated feature environment - away from efforts to make them mean something they don't - is there enough to these characters to sustain what makes them funny as central characters in their own film?  Sadly, no there isn't.  Despite the prat-falls, the references to bananas, and the childish sibling rivalry that often descends to slapping play-fights, the Minions really need to be used as they were in the first two Despicable Me films.  They are comic relief, and work best in short doses.  Despite the presence of big name actors like Sandra Bullock, Jon Hamm, Alison Janney and Michael Keaton, none of the other characters make much of an impact.  Central villain Scarlett Overkill has none of the redeemable qualities of Gru - you might say she shouldn't as she's the antagonist of the piece, but you don't get a sense that someone like her needs the Minions to do assist her in her schemes; she's ruthless to the point where she crosses being an evil b*tch to behaving like a spoilt child.  And that, for me, is the crucial reason why the Minions didn't need their own film - the whole concept of a minion is a disposable lackey, someone to bear the brunt when their master's plans fail (both as they're designed, and in the execution).  These characters really turn up the comedic potential of this idea - when they are support to Gru in the Despicable Me films.

Ultimately, 'Minions' is a film that is more squarely aimed at kids.  The warm, reassuring tones of Geoffrey Rush's narration (which will evoke in parents nostalgia for the programmes they watched as young kids in the '70's, '80's and '90's), and the very broad (often clichéd) strokes used to depict the 1960's and London, are too familiar to adults, who will most likely want something a bit more sophisticated.  The supporting cast of named actors sound like they're phoning in their performances, which is a shame considering the talent involved.  And this film suffers from the problem many comedies have recently - if you've seen the trailers then you've genuinely seen almost all of the best gags (especially a montage showing the Minions' journey under various masters through history).  This film is an excellent marketing opportunity, destined to sell lots of toys, kid's fast food meals, and will make Universal's already monumental Box Office even bigger this year.  It's a film that'll keep kids amused and entertained for its duration, but sadly won't do anything more.  It just makes me wonder if, by the time we get the next Despicable Me sequel next year, will the Minions joke already have been stretched too far, too thin?  Well, so long as they help that film to further financial success, I doubt the film makers or the Studio will think so.

Monthly Marvel Musings: Can Marvel Studios negotiate other characters back to the MCU?

In the midst of recent casting announcements (some big, some very welcome, some minor), some interesting details have emerged regarding the various rights issues that my help - or hinder - bringing various Marvel characters and stories to the big screen.  This month I thought I'd look at this; in some cases it makes certain films or comics stories seem unlikely to happen, but there is light at the end of the tunnel....

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Following Spidey, can Marvel Studios negotiate other characters back to the MCU?

So this week it was finally confirmed that young British actor Tom Holland would be the new, teenage Peter Parker (better known as Spiderman), as well as relatively unknown Director Jon Watts would be in charge of his first solo outing.  But alongside this was the interesting confirmation that, despite Sony still having the rights (and therefore windfalls of box office) from the character, Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige confirmed that they, not Sony, are effectively producing this film.  Basically, Sony puts up the money, makes the profits, but creative decisions - casting, story, director, etc - ultimately are down to the choices of Marvel Studios.  This is the result of well-publicised negotiations between Sony and Marvel Studios - the former wanting to get their biggest money earner back on track after two perceived disappointments, the latter wanting the character in their MCU sand box (not to mention it being a massive desire on the part of fans).  This deal gives me hope that we may see beloved characters and stories realised, that at present look unlikely to happen - and it has to be said that many of these are down to Fox studios having X-Men and Fantastic Four.

Interestingly, what prompted this article wasn't so much the Spiderman-related news above, but rumours around the next Wolverine film (confirmed as Hugh Jackman's last in the role) being based on a comic story called 'Old Man Logan'.  To be fair, while there are elements of the story that could be an interesting basis for this film, on the other the bulk of the story relies on the pantheon of Marvel characters - the overwhelming majority of which Fox wouldn't have access to.  The story isn't part of Marvel comic's accepted continuity, but is a Mark Millar written 'what if' story that is set in a bleak, post-apocalyptic future; teaming together, the super-villains have defeated and killed most of the Marvel heroes, and America is split in to realms ruled by various villains.  Wolverine has apparently survived all this, and turned his back on the name he's associated with and has literally not extended his claws for many years.  Living with his wife and children in the area ruled by Hulk and his offspring sired in a relationship with She-Hulk (who is his cousin in the comics, remember!), he is forced to take a mission to escort Hawkeye (now a blind, old man) from one side of the US to the other.  Taking in encounters with symbiote-covered dinosaurs, Red Skull, and an underground resistance of superheroes, the story is violent, bloody and bleak; but it has a very blackly comic under-current to it.  Before you get to the rights issues that'd prevent it being filmed, you have to say that tonally it just wouldn't fit with the output of either Fox's X-Men films, nor the MCU.  Yet in the midst of the rumours, there were some people hopeful Marvel Studios and Fox could negotiate an agreement like the one with Sony.  I honestly can't see this happening, not only due to the tone of the story, but also because it seems relations between Fox and Marvel are a bit patchy right now.

The part of 'Old Man Logan' where he's turned his back on violence, and has to escort an ageing hero across dangerous territory would be a good basis for the next Wolverine film.  The rest of the story, well, not so much...

It seems to be around the issue of marketing.  To start with, Marvel Comics have ceased publishing Fantastic Four comics; while the characters still exist in the comics (and will appear in the re-launch that is going to happen after a current cross-over event 'Secret Wars' has culminated), their comic ended months ago.  As this happened around the same time Fox put the new, rebooted Fantastic Four movie in to production, some speculated Marvel did this to snub Fox for not getting the rights back.  This isn't the case however, as it seems the cancellation of Fantastic Four comics was driven mainly by sales.  Even though Fox have X-Men, Marvel Comics have never stopped publishing the many X-Men books - and obviously so, as the titles are amongst Marvel's best sellers; Fantastic Four, it has been acknowledged, were suffering from flagging sales of their comic.  But though comic sales may not be the issue, other merchandising is showing clear signs that there is a rift between Marvel and Fox.  A number of recently released pieces of Marvel themed merchandising, such as t-shirts and posters, have depicted classic Marvel images (for example comic covers) featuring many of their well-known characters - but where X-Men or Fantastic Four characters have appeared, these have been Photoshopped to remove the characters Marvel don't have the film rights for, and replaced with lesser-known ones that they do (e.g. Luke Cage, Black Panther or Iron Fist).  As well as that, recent ranges of Marvel Action Figures haven't included X-Men or Fantastic Four characters.

Time-travelling super-villain Kang the Conqueror has been a frequent adversary of the Avengers in the comics...

So it's clear that Marvel are at the very least reluctant to let their merchandise promote Fox's movies.  Similarly, there have apparently been no discussions, as with Sony, to find a way to allow characters to crossover.  While there is a strong argument that Fox has such a strong X-Men universe, and the MCU is doing great without Mutants, that this isn't an issue (although it'd be tremendous fun to see Wolverine team-up with/fight against the likes of the Avengers, as he has one many times in the comics) - but going forward this may prove issues if Marvel Studios want to bring certain stories, and certain characters in them, to cinemas.  Details emerged recently regarding which of the 'cosmic' characters - that is, the ones who are from outer space, or involve wackier concepts like inter-dimension or time travel - Marvel studios don't have the rights to, and there are implications that could affect future Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy films.  To start with, a powerful and recurring adversary of the Avengers is Kang the Conqueror, a super-villain from the future who uses time travel to set about his plans for world and galactic domination.  Unfortunately, it seems Fox got the rights to this character along with the Fantastic Four - as in the comics Kang is really Nathaniel Richards, a 30th Century descendent of Mr Fantastic Reed Richards, of the Fantastic Four.  So, Kang resides with Fox.

...but as he first appeared in Fantastic Four, and is a descendant of one of the FF characters, his rights are with Fox.

Another well-known and much-loved Avengers story is 'Secret Invasion', which had a race of alien Shape-shifters called the Skrulls attempt to conquer Earth by kidnapping, and imitating, the Marvel heroes.  This race have a vast back-story in the comics, where they once had a bitter war with the Kree Empire (represented by Ronan the Accuser in Guardians of the Galaxy) - during which the Kree experimented on early humans to create what would become the Inhumans.  Although the recent Agents of SHIELD season introduced the Inhumans to the MCU, and established their Kree-based origins, the Skrulls are unlikely to appear in the MCU - as they first appeared in Fantastic Four.  That's right, Fox has their rights.  These aren't the only aliens who have featured heavily in the comics who can't be used by Marvel Studios - the Shi'ar Empire first appeared in X-Men, so belong to Fox, and the Badoon (although Guardians Director James Gunn says the rights are shared between Fox and Marvel); don't anticipate seeing these cause problems for the Guardians of the Galaxy or the Avengers any time soon.

So did alien race the Skrulls, due to their appearing first in Fantastic Four comics.  Keeping up?

And this is before we get in to the obvious cross-overs - Doctor Doom waging war against the Avengers, Thanos teaming with Annihilus to use Galactus as a weapon against the galaxy - with these villains tied to the Fantastic Four at Fox, these stories will likely never hit the big screen.  Not only is this a shame, but with the current situation many of these characters, and stories are just being completely wasted.  Given as how the series Producers, and directors (notably Bryan Singer) have been at pains to keep X-Men grounded and relatable to the 'real world' we live in, it seems like a massive stretch that they would suddenly have them fighting alien races and going off in to space (even though they have in the comics).  Similarly, although you've got the Fantastic Four traversing dimensions in the upcoming reboot, again an apparently grounded and scientifically believable tone would be at odds with stories involving time-travel and intergalactic villains.  Essentially, it is unlikely Fox would use these characters (without utterly changing their setting or context).  But if Fox wouldn't, Marvel Studios definitely could; after The Infinity War, Kang the Conqueror would be a formidable opponent for the Avengers to take on; and the Kree could re-ignite their war with the Skrulls as the background to a future adventure for the Guardians of the Galaxy - that's if the Skrulls haven't already been defeated, trying to conquer Earth, by the Avengers.

Unless the rights are renegotiated, don't count on seeing the popular 'Secret Invasion' storyline from the comics turned in to an Avengers film.

It seems very unlikely given the apparent enmity between the two parties at the moment, but in an ideal world surely it would make sense for Marvel Studios and Fox to sit down and agree which of these characters they are genuinely likely to use - and if they don't fit, come to some agreement to let Marvel have them back, away from X-Men or Fantastic Four.  It might take money, but given how Disney are having a pretty decent year at the Box Office, I'm sure they could stump up some cash to sweeten the offer..!  But it might not even take money to make it happen.  It is unlikely that the Fantastic Four rights would revert to Marvel Studios automatically - this would depend upon the imminent film being a total flop, and even with the scepticism and criticisms around it, this seems unlikely: a sequel has already been scheduled by Fox.  Yet the deal between Marvel Studios and Sony regarding Spiderman could demonstrate a solution here - Fox and Marvel negotiating a cross-over between the MCU and the Fantastic Four, in return to marketing exposure via Marvel's comics, toy and other subsidiaries, or sharing production costs, or something along those lines.  There'd be no need for another reboot, or recasting - the new Fantastic Four movie has them crossing inter-dimensional boundaries, so who's to say they couldn't cross in to the dimension where the MCU resides?  Seeing as alternative dimensions and parallel universes are a staple of the comics (the current 'Secret Wars' story event is based on the 'classic' Marvel Universe and the 'Ultimate' version literally colliding), writing a story to justify this, and use as a platform for bigger cross-over events, shouldn't be too much for audiences to accept.  This seems an ideal solution, and would allow Marvel Studios access to some great stories for adapting - as well as giving fans the opportunity to finally see the Fantastic Four in the MCU.

Although in the comics the X-Men have frequently journey to outer space and encounter alien races, these stories just wouldn't fit the tone of the film series.

And there's no reason the X-Men could be left out of this, either; if Professor X's psychic powers can communicate across time, there's no reason they couldn't do the same across dimensions.  And if Wolverine's healing factor means he's the only mutant capable of surviving time travel, surely the same applies to inter-dimensional travel..?  With ideas like that it's easy enough to create a story thread to justify setting up an event like Wolverine fighting with the Avengers, and would prove a massive draw to fans and general audiences.  As for the finances, rights, and legal side - well, I'll leave that to Kevin Feige and his counterparts at Fox (not to mention the studios' Lawyers)!  But if Marvel and Sony can 'share' Spiderman, there's hopes something could happen to give Fantastic Four, X-Men, and their many classic foes a chance to appear alongside Spidey in the MCU.

That's it for now - next month I'll be reflecting on Ant-Man, so be sure to come back soon!

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Movies Ever: Jaws

I've been quite busy this month, so this blog has been quieter than usual - but I've found time to look back at an all-time great movie that just happens to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of its first release this month...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART NINE:

JAWS

After 40 years of being regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, it might seem redundant to further analyse 'Jaws' - there have, after all, been entire books written about the film.  But I can still bring a personal perspective to why it remains so greatly loved, and continues to terrorise and captivate each new generation.  If you were growing up in the late 1970's or '80's, there is little doubt that you were at some point terrified by this film: John William's menacing and hysteria-inducing score, the gory shocks of severed hands or chewed off heads, and the horrific sight of thrashing limbs as the sea turns red - these are etched on to the psyche of an entire generation.  But we survived this trauma, partly because the film ends on a cathartic and brighter note than the death and terror that precedes it; and partly because we all took it and put it in the games we played - who else would play 'Jaws' in the school playground, chasing their friends, snapping their arms like a fanged mouth, while singing the 'duh-duh, duh-duh' signature over and over?  I can't have been the only one!

But this is a film that doesn't just frighten kids, there is real substance to the plot and characters that make it one that so many people happily revisit time after time, year on year.  Of course, it is directed with real panache by Spielberg - no one would know what a dolly zoom is if it wasn't for that shot - but it helps that the script, and the actors playing them, give the characters a depth that really makes this film more than the simple 'shark hunt' story it could otherwise have been.  It's little touches that blockbusters nowadays often overlook that help achieve this; for example, I love the scene where Chief Brody and his wife make fun of the New England accents of the community they've moved to ("I'll put the CAAHRR in the GAH-RAAHGE!") - it's a scene that does nothing to advance the plot, but is so intrinsic to the characters - it's easy see how many films today would have cut it out altogether.

One of the most famous shots in film history...

When I think about Jaws, something that springs to mind is how it is one of those few films that, if you come across it channel hopping, inevitably you end up watching it regardless how far in it is.  I don't just think that's because it has been seen so many times that it's etched on our minds (though it might be); to me it's because it almost feels like two films in one.  The first half, where the threat of the shark is slowly being realised as it begins to terrorise the swimmers around Amity Island, feels like a '50's monster b-movie, or a horror movie.  You've got some of the elements - the police chief and 'scientist' (okay, biologist) that realise the threat but whose warnings fall on deaf ears amongst those in authority, until (of course) it's too late.  You've got a relentless, uncatchable, dangerous and barely seen monster, from whom no one is safe - even dogs or children.  (As a side note, am I the only one who gets frustrated during the scene where Mrs Kintner, grieving at the death of her son at the shark, slaps Brody round the face?  I always want to scream at the screen "go slap the stupid Mayor, it's his fault the beaches weren't closed!"  Or, maybe that's just me?  Ok then.)  But then the film shifts in the final section, almost half the film, as Quint takes Brody and Hooper out to hunt the beast: okay, the strands of the shark hunt are already set up, but the feel becomes that of an adventure, a wild hunt, a cat-and-mouse thriller at sea.

All together now: "you're gonna need..."

During this second half there are moments where the film deliberately slows down, further differentiating itself from what has preceded it; the films ups the tension to almost unbearable levels for a scene where no one - not even Brody's children - are safe, then it almost goes off at a tangent, with the focus seemingly shifting to Quint.  Well, it might just be that Robert Shaw's performance is so iconic, so mesmerising, that it seems like the film becomes about him and his quest to get the shark.  Again, it's incredible to think that any film, especially one that is apparently a genre movie, would take a shift at the final act, when most films are gearing up to their climax.  That's not to say that at this point the film doesn't have tension, or build to a satisfying and tense finale - which of course it does - but there are few films that would still find space for great moments of character while gearing towards a final showdown.  We should all be thankful that 'Jaws' does this, as we get one of the greatest single scenes ever committed to celluloid: an evening of drinks leads to some unlikely male bonding between three unimaginably disparate characters, seguing in to an unforgettable monologue from Shaw: his revelation about the USS Indianapolis.  It is a moment that, aside from the phenomenal acting performance that Shaw delivers, is a moment that - in the midst of an apparently light-hearted scene - manages to make the film even more disquieting, and brings a level of genuine and actual horror to it.  For whilst the shark attacks of the first part of the film, terrifying as they are, are still fiction, this monologue is based in fact.  And it carries deeper terror, as it draws attention to the fate of these lost and seemingly abandoned sailors, facing the prospect of drowning or being eaten alive; furthermore, during a time of war, when capture by the Japanese military must have been a terrifying prospect.  And the final piece on top of all that, the mission was to deliver the first Nuclear bomb used during war - a subtle reminder that mankind is capable of acts far more horrific than those driven by the survival instincts of a natural predator.

"Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies..."

'Jaws' was a landmark release at the time, it etched itself on the minds of the generation that were children when it was first released - but it remains an enduring classic.  And I think it's worth considering how remarkable that is, because on paper it doesn't add up to a film that has followed some 'template' or 'recipe' to be successful: hallmarks of B-movies, monster movies, horror movies; terror, gore and menace; a final act that veers in to a nautical adventure, or a study of man versus nature.  But Spielberg's seminal direction - his technical mastery, ability to make a scene just simply work, and his lightness of touch with characters and his actors - combines with great acting performances and an effective script to give us an iconic masterpiece of cinema. In this piece I've barely scratched the surface of its complexity, of what makes it so great; yet the fact it its rediscovered afresh and equally loved by each new generation is testimony to what a fantastic piece of cinema it is.  I just need to persuade my son to sit and watch the whole film now - so he can be terrified, thrilled and enthralled, just like his mum and dad were by 'Jaws' at his age..!

Movie Review - Spy: Comedy's funniest new double-act, Melissa McCarthy and Jason Statham - eh?!?

2015 will be remembered as a pretty decent year for spy movies; 'Kingsman The Secret Service' was a lot of fun, the latest Mission Impossible film looks entertainingly crazy, the Men from 'UNCLE' are revived for a big screen debut in August, and, of course, November will see James Bond return to take on his classic nemesis in 'SPECTRE'.  In the midst of these arrives 'Spy', an action-comedy starring Melissa McCarthy, Jude Law and Jason Statham.  I'm loathe to call it a 'spoof', as 'Spy' does make an effort to establish itself as an actual spy movie - you've got the CIA, satellite surveillance, terrorist threats, assassins.  At the same time though it is clearly aware of the tropes of the genre.  Law's character Agent Bradley Fine is an American proxy of Bond, with all the suaveness and moves, but not above a tragically mis-timed case of allergies.  His support comes in the form of CIA analyst Susan Cooper (McCarthy), a 'voice' in his earpiece who uses satellite, infrared (and perfectly timed missile strikes!) to help him carry out his missions.  When the daughter of a deceased villain (Rose Byrne) plans to sell a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group the CIA has to track her down - but her apparent knowledge of all their field agents threatens to prevent any attempt to pursue her.  Susan steps forward to volunteer gathering intel in the field, as who would suspect a plump and dowdy woman from tech-support of being, in reality, a CIA spy?

The first act of this film is arguably the weakest, and threatens to scupper the whole thing before it's already got going.  Much of the 'humour' comes from McCarthy's weight and the manner of her character, because she looks like the 'kind of woman' who would be a cat owner - obviously because she's single and lonely, and no one would like her because she doesn't have the super-model looks of CIA agent Karen Walker (Morena Baccarin).  Similarly, this extends to Miranda Hart's fellow CIA support person Nancy, due to her being tall etc etc.  Given as we have an actress capable of playing ferocious yet/or vulnerable characters, and a writer/director in Paul Fieg who has professed to being a fan of funny actresses (he gave the world Bridesmaids and will next be directing the female Ghostbusters team), this is not just a disappointment; it feels very misjudged.  It also depends on your preferences, but humour based upon un-confident people being put through awkward situations to be laughed at by their physical/social 'betters' just makes me cringe; it feels cheap, easy and a waste of the talents of all involved.  Thankfully, this film has an ace up its sleeve - in reality Susan is as competent a field agent as any of her colleagues (and quite a bad-ass to boot), and as the film goes on this becomes abundantly clear, to mostly great comedic effect.

The film frequently makes fun of how some people might pigeon-hole Susan Cooper (McCarthy) due to her appearance; it rises above this by revealing Cooper to be a capable and pretty bad-ass agent

In many ways, this film plays it safe; the plot is not the most original or most convincing spy caper put to film, the action is adequately but not spectacularly handled; but as a vehicle for the comedy it does just about enough.  McCarthy is funniest at her most bolshy and foul-mouthed - again, we've seen this before from her in other films so it feels like a safe thing for it to do (also, it means the film lives or dies on whether or not you find her funny at all; if you don't, this film won't likely win you over).  Miranda Hart brings her goofy, slightly awkward yet enthusiastic 'jolly hockeysticks' persona to the role, again not a stretch, but she doesn't get in the way of the film nor feel like a major asset (though she does get a couple of very funny moments).  Having said that, the film's greatest asset - and biggest surprise - is Jason Statham as CIA agent Rick Ford; you'd have been forgiven for not thinking him capable of comedy, but here he makes a fantastic double-act with McCarthy, getting the share of the film's funniest lines.  Great comedy works best when there's a straight man, although you could argue Statham's character - a crazy riff on some of the action roles he's best known for - isn't quite in that mould.  He delivers his lines with a great intensity, aided by the slightly psychotic glint in his eye (which is no doubt due to the fact he is visibly doing all he can from bursting in to laughter).

The funniest scenes arguably are those containing Jason Statham.  Who'd have thought it?

'Spy' isn't the most memorable or original film to turn the genre to comedy, and it doesn't feel like much of a stretch for a lot of its headline cast.  It overcomes a weak beginning and some potentially patronising body-stereotyping humour to deliver some very funny moments, and in Jason Statham one of the most surprising and effective assets a comedy has delivered.  While not an instant classic like the immensely likeable 'Bridesmaids', it is an effective and mostly funny vehicle for McCarthy and her supporting cast; but it's Jason Statham who gives this film the lift it needs to be something that might have otherwise been rote and forgettable.

Monthly Marvel Musings - Analysing some of the negative responses to Avengers Age of Ultron...

Despite the fact Captain America Civil War has started filming (with a huge and hugely impressive cast), I wanted to talk Avengers Age of Ultron spoilers this month.  However I've changed tack slightly; there has already been loads written about the spoilers and easter-eggs in this film - what I wanted to talk about specifically though is the reaction to the film.  From some quarters there has been the beginning of a backlash forming, and I want to discuss that - firstly, how in many ways it's unjustified, and secondly what it means for the movies of Marvel Studios going forward.  There are SPOILERS for Age of Ultron, so if you haven't seen it yet proceed with caution!

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Analysing the response to 'Age of Ultron'

The film industry is peculiar - the one thing it loves just as much, sometimes more, than a great success is an abject failure.  You'll see industry insiders and critics getting their knives out for a film, setting it up for failure, even before it has even been released  Sometimes it's justified, others it's not entirely (this is worthy of a discussion on it's own, but as an example check out how critic reactions to 'The Lone Ranger' varied from those in the US to the rest of the world, after it was already considered a 'flop' there; the consensus internationally was that it wasn't as bad a film as the US critics said).  There's been more than a little bit of this schadenfreud creeping in to a handful of reviews of Age of Ultron; whilst I'd agree that it does have it's flaws, and isn't as good a film as it's predecessor, a few critics have jumped beyond those and tried to make out that it is an out and out disappointment and failure of a film.  And for my life, I can't see why.

Yes, the plot has some issues, and the film suffers in a few places because of how many character arcs are in play, including some that - even director Joss Whedon admits - were cut down more than they needed to be.  It is worth pointing out that repeat viewings of the film clarifies some of the issues with the various character arcs; a number of critics have acknowledged this, and I would go further and say that (with the exception of Thor's savagely cut arc) repeat viewings do make everything make sense.  For example, some have argued that Tony Stark's arc is kind of a non-arc; he doesn't seem to bear any consequences for creating Ultron, or that he doesn't have a reason to leave the Avengers.  It's worth bearing in mind that this film continues the character development that has been happening in the previous MCU films; At the end of 'Iron Man 3' Tony Stark hasn't 'quit' being Iron Man ( as some people have interpreted it), rather he has become comfortable with his capabilities as someone who can engineer and science a solution to overcome problems and adversity.  These inform his motivations to create Ultron, as well as the PTSD you can see he is dealing with in 'Iron Man 3'.  In that film you can see how his obsessive suit-building behaviour has been informed by taking on an Alien army, but by being alongside people whose actual physical powers exceed his own; but his ego exceeds that, and his experiences have given him a saviour complex.  Of course, Ultron goes totally wrong, and he has to deal with the consequences of that, and the guilt that's left.  There's hints of the guilt he still feels over his pre-Iron Man life as an arms manufacturer as well.  And if 'Iron Man 3' sees him coming to accept his limitations, I think that informs his decision to leave the Avengers: Ultron has been dealt with, so he has made amends in that respect, the Avengers are still going under Captain America alongside the newly re-established SHIELD - he can move on.

There are that many character arcs woven through this film, it really does take more than one viewing to fully grasp and appreciate them...

I'll admit though that whilst multiple viewings of this film will help you get to grips with the numerous character arcs, there's two issues that also underpin the negative reactions to the film that can't be addressed that easily, so they deserve further investigation.  I'd say that these can be summed up by a lack of surprise, and a growing familiarity with the Marvel Studios 'formula'.

Careful what you wish for...

There's a saying that there are two tragedies in this world: the first is not getting what you want.  The second is getting what you want.  I think that applies to Avengers Age of Ultron, in both respects.  Remember, it was almost a miracle that 'Avengers Assemble' worked as well as it did, but it is an euphoric, punch-the-air triumph.  I've talked previously about why it is so great - the witty script, the excitement of seeing this team working together and fighting alongside each other.  Well, we all hoped that we would get this from the sequel - if not, even more so.  And Age of Ultron does give us that - numerous thrilling scenes of The Avengers together, fighting, rescuing people, being awesome - and having some really funny interactions with each other in their downtime.  But for some people, this wasn't enough.  Why?

I think this film should mark a turning point for Marvel Studios - because it is the point where, despite their success, there is familiarity beginning to creep in, and familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes.  What has worked for Marvel Studios is an emphasis on character, 'levity', and action.  Whilst all of these were handled well in Age of Ultron, the formula is becoming amply clear - especially in the final act which is the sixth Marvel Studios movie to feature something falling from the sky; not to mention that scenes of The Avengers fighting hordes of faceless minions felt a lot like the finale of 'Avengers Assemble'.  I get that there's a part of that you're always going to see with The Avengers - they're the only team powerful enough to deal with villainous hordes, in whatever form they take.  But there are other sides to their team-work and powers which could be emphasised in future films - in the final act of AoU it was more exciting seeing them work to protect and rescue civilians, for the most part, than punching Ultron Drones.

As well as this, I believe there is a sense that the film, in delivering exactly what audiences were hoping and expecting in terms of humour and spectacle, actually feels like the first Marvel Studios film in a while that DIDN'T exceed expectations.  Looking back at the films that have come before it, they either contained a killer twist that no one would have seen coming (The Mandarin in IM3, Loki on the Throne of Asgard, SHIELD being infiltrated by Hydra), or by the sheer fact that they were so good that no one could have anticipated it (Captain America The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy).  When I walked out of my first viewing of AoU, the thing that struck me as the only REAL surprise was that there were no BIG surprises.  Sure, we learnt about Hawkeye's family (spoiled for me before seeing it by the IMDB cast listings, thank you!) and Banner & Romanov's relationship, but there were no massive shocks, no revelations, no plot twists.  With the talk of the team's line up changing at the end of the film, and Hulk's absence from the next few films, many fans were anticipating his exile to space (like the Planet Hulk comic arc), or (given that it's a Whedon trademark) the death of a major character (while we got one, it wasn't as impactful as others might have been).  Then there was anticipation this would set up Civil War, either through some calamitous event or growing tensions in the team - but at the end Thor and Stark's departure is with friendly banter and a hand shake - no signs of conflict.  On top of that, we know we're getting The Infinity War in a few years' time, so setting up the Infinity Stones feels like a tick-box exercise to set things in motion - even though, yes, it is cool that this is where the MCU is headed.

So if AoU is a disappointment at all it's not because it's a failure as a film - it's just that it is a well-made and entertaining blockbuster that didn't exceed expectations, unlike its predecessors.  Yeah, I get that unlike 'Avengers Assemble' it doesn't feel like the culmination of something, but it is what it is - another part in an ongoing series.  It could have set things up more for the next films, but Whedon made it clear that he didn't want to make a film that had a cliff-hanger or unsatisfying ending; you can't argue that AoU ties up its story  whilst providing a starting point for the ones to follow.  If people think that's disappointing, how much more so would a more open conclusion have been?

Don't Feed the Trolls

As I've said, AoU is not a perfect film, it has many flaws, but it's still an entertaining, witty and spectacular blockbuster.  I can't understand that it's not okay for this film to do what people expect, when a film like 'Fast & Furious 7' can similarly deliver more of the same, effectively, and that's accepted uncritically.  It comes back to what I was saying - people in the film industry love setting things up to fail after they've been successful.  Joss Whedon made the most successful super-hero film of all time with 'Avengers Assemble', so it's sad that people have been, in some respects, clutching at straws to tear him and Marvel Studios down.  I've responded to the (at best) questionable criticisms of misogyny levelled at the film (which I think are missing the point spectacularly), but there are some people so desperate to claim the film a failure they've even tried to use the Box Office as an indicator of this.  Okay, the film didn't open higher than its predecessor (as many had anticipated), but $185 million is still the second highest opening of all time (that's right, only the first Avengers is higher).  It broke records in most international territories when it opened (in the UK it was the biggest Superhero movie opening of all time), and is set to be one of the top-five highest grossing movies of all time (it's currently the highest grossing film of the year in the US - and it's still got a while to run).  It is not unusual for sequels to see their box office drop from their predecessors - especially if they open bigger (for example, 'Spider-man 2' had a much lower opening and final gross than'Spider-man' - you wouldn't see anyone using that as an argument to suggest it's a weaker film, when the opposite is largely held to be true); bearing in mind that (as unlikely as it sounds!) there are people who say 'Avengers Assemble' and didn't want to see a sequel.  I don’t think you'll see a film beat the first Avenger's box office until 'Infinity War Part 2', so using a slightly decreased gross as 'proof' of AoU being a 'failure' is an incredibly flawed argument.

Don't worry team, the Trolls are a minority - everyone else still loves ya!

By and large though it is pleasing that the overwhelming majority of the audience, and of course MCU & comic fans, thoroughly enjoyed AoU.  So does that mean no one should take heed of the naysayers?  Far from it - I believe Marvel Studios needs to listen, and put everything they can in to their upcoming slate to ensure that each film does more than fulfil the MCU formula; they should aim to surprise the audience as much as possible with each film.

That's it for this month - this column will be back in June with more discussion about the upcoming MCU slate, possibly including a new Spiderman, some Ant-Man, and maybe some Doctor Strange...

"Age of Ultron is misogynistic", they say. "I think you've missed the point", say I.

I had intended to finish and post my spoiler-filled analysis of 'Avengers Age of Ultron' this week, but in the last couple of days a controversy has arisen which has seen an internet backlash against the film, and more personally, against the films writer/director Joss Whedon.  There have been criticisms of the films plot (some of which aren't unjustified, but do not deserve the level of abuse that has apparently been directed at Whedon), but what has really had me scratching my head are the accusations that Whedon's portrayal of women in the film, and specifically the Black Widow character, are misogynistic.  I can't help but feel that these accusations are based upon people not really understanding what is going on with that character in the film, or with her back-story.  Note: there are big SPOILERS for AoU in this article, so please proceed with caution if you've not seen the film yet!

Now, to be fair this is by-and-large a storm in a teacup; Guardians of the Galaxy Director James Gunn has taken to his Facebook page to express his thoughts on the matter, and he quotes Joe Russo (who alongside his brother directed Captain America The Winter Soldier) who rightly states "This kind of vitriol should be reserved for issues that actually demand outrage. Look around at your world... fiction is not one of them."  This is true.  But when a significant number are jumping to a conclusion which is, at best, based on a misunderstanding, or at worst just plain erroneous, I feel the need to speak out and try to counter these opinions with a measured and considered response.  I've already spoken about Age of Ultron's plot issues - even Whedon himself has admitted there is at least one strand they edited so much it almost doesn't work - however these aren't enough to derail the film at all; it is still an entertaining, fun, spectacular and witty blockbuster.

But the claims regarding women in the film, and specifically the portrayal of Black Widow, really need to be examined more closely as I'm not sure they're justified at all.  I must acknowledge that there are a huge swathe of people who will point out that as a white male of European heritage, I am arguably in no place to offer a counter to feminist critique.  In my defence I would like to say that I am someone who is vehemently opposed to all forms of inequality, injustice and oppression, whether it is based upon class,race, income or gender.  I have been a member of Amnesty International, have worked for charities, and have taken part in goodness knows how many campaigns on issues related to the rights of workers, women, oppressed minorities, people in poverty, and many others.  Okay, I'm a man, and I realise I can't fully comprehend the experience and perspective of women battling sexism, misogyny and oppression in its many forms across all cultures in the world; it does not mean I cannot have sympathy, as one human being to another, when I see or read about these struggles.

One of the things I love about cinema is that it enables the viewer to get the perspective of someone else, from a different culture, race, class, or gender - either through the direction or the characters in the story being told.  So in that respect I fully welcome feminist perspectives in cinema, not to mention feminist critiques of films.  The Superhero genre is ripe for feminist critique, especially as there have been so many portrayals of female characters (including Superheroes) that at which accusations of misogyny and sexism can be fairly placed.  So when I write this I'm not coming from a place where I am hostile to this sort of criticism (sadly, there are a lot of men who are).    But the level of criticism being aimed at Whedon (to the point where death threats have been made) is, on a personal level, absolutely absurd.  He apparently needs to learn how to write 'strong female characters'.

Really, Joss Whedon needs to learn how to write strong female characters?  Joss Whedon, who brought the world Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the several strong female characters in that series?  Who wrote at least 3 strong female characters in 'Firefly'?  Who wrote 'Dollhouse', centred on a premise fronted by a strong, female character?  Who was writing a version of Wonder Woman for Warner Bros (that sadly never saw the light of day)?  Do you really think he's a misogynist??? As far as criticism goes, it is one of the most flawed you will ever see - there is just no evidence to support it.  Still, it hasn't stopped people jumping on the bandwagon, and yesterday news broke that Whedon had quit Twitter.  This has been seen as a victory for those levelling criticism and abuse at him - but before they begin their victory dance I'd just like to point out that Whedon had probably already planned to do this; he has spoken recently about how exhausting the making of AoU was, and in interviews to promote it he has sounded very, very tired too.  Now the film is out across the world (except China), is doing massive business (still there are haters claiming the $191 million, second highest US opening of all-time, is a disaster.  Yes, really.), and his promotional commitments are done, it's hardly surprising that he is taking a break, is shutting out the world, and is enjoying some rest and recuperation, probably with his family and loved-ones.  Who can blame him?  He has since confirmed the abuse isn't the reason, but he's doing it for some 'quiet' - I'd say he's earnt it!

I'll admit there are more substance to criticisms over the portrayal of individual female characters in AoU; but do they hold up to scrutiny?  The biggest is over Natasha 'Black Widow' Romanoff (played by Scarlett Johansson), and it stems to a scene (probably my favourite in the film) where she confides in Bruce 'Hulk' Banner (Mark Ruffalo) that she was sterilised as part of her training to become a Soviet assassin.  So, the feminist critique here stems to being fine with when she is snapping people's necks and delivering barbed quips, but the admission regarding sterilisation amounts to her saying 'I just want to have kids and be a stay at home mother'; and as Whedon has put those words in to the character, he is therefore denigrating female Superheroes and comic characters, by making them all disempowered women who secretly just want to be housewives.  Yes, this particular scene and admission by the character takes place in a bedroom with children's toys and drawings in, in a 'picture perfect' rural farmhouse, where lives another female character who is a stay at home mother (apparently another negative portrayal of a female character in this film).

I can't help but think people are putting 2 and 2 together, and getting 5 - they are misreading the situation, the context, and above all the character herself.  Is Black Widow REALLY saying all she wants is to have kids and be a stay at home Mom?  Not necessarily.  In the scene Banner and Natasha are opening up to each other about the prospect of a normal relationship.  Banner suggests he can never have a 'normal' relationship - marriage, children, as per the setting for the scene - because of the Hulk.  Natasha reveals how she can't have that either as she was sterilised.    It was literally taken from her by the people running the programme that raised her, from childhood, to be a super-spy assassin.  In my opinion this admission is not regret at losing out on being a mother, it is that Romanoff has had the opportunity to choose this taken from her.  Surely, one of the central aspects of feminism is choice - that a woman can choose her level of education, her own career path, what she does with her own body in terms of relationships and having children (or not).  It's not totally clear from the films, but in the comics she is taken in to the 'Black Widow' program as she was an orphaned, effectively brain-washed in to being an assassin, and sterilised to ensure she would always be compliant to her orders and mission.  In this scene Whedon is spelling out the connection she and Banner have within the Avengers - neither truly fit in as archetypal 'Heroes' like Cap or Thor; in fact throughout the MCU films we learn that Romanoff joined SHIELD, and in turn the Avengers, as she no longer wanted to be an assassin and is seeking to atone for some of the terrible actions she was ordered to carry out in the past.

Basically, this scene emphasises that as a child she had the choice about what sort of life she could leave effectively taken from her.  The sterilisation is part of that - her sadness is not necessarily entirely due to her not being able to become a mother, but is arguably that she had the ability to choose this taken from her.  She has since chosen to turn her back on her past, and has chosen to put her training and skills to better use protecting people and taking on genuine baddies.  Where this issue is so strongly related to choice, I'm amazed that women criticising this film have not been able to make the connection to, what would seem to me anyway, is a key idea to feminism.  But what do I know - I'm just a guy, and I've never even read any Germaine Greer.  Perhaps then criticism over making Hawkeye's wife a stay at home mother is valid.

I can sort of see the point.  You add a new female character to this series about superheroes, and just write her as a 'home-maker', who stays at home while her husband is out 'saving the world' with the Avengers.  On the other hand, is this jumping to conclusions about her character?  We don't know anything about her other than she is Hawkeye's wife, and mother to his 2 (soon to be 3) children; there is no suggestion about her past.  How did she and Hawkeye meet?  How did they fall in love?  A single line confirms that they were together before Hawkeye joined SHIELD.  Perhaps they both worked in the military; perhaps she was an intelligence officer with ranking over him, and she sent him on missions, which is how they met?  Perhaps she was part of a team of agents alongside him?  Or perhaps he just bumped in to her on his day-off, they hit it off and started dating - which, *gasp* does happen in actual life..!  Whatever has happened, at some point she has made the choice (there we go, that word again...!) to stay at home and raise their children.  I think that people are imprinting a negative feminist-based critique on the character just because of the singular context she is presented in this film, and reading her as a statement that "A WOMAN'S PLACE IS AT HOME, BIRTHING CHILDREN AND RAISING THEM."  I find it hard to believe that a series which has kick-ass female super-assassins, female scientific genii, and female corporate CEO's would actually be making that sweeping statement about women.  Yet, ironically, it's women making a feminist reading of the film that are making this conclusion..!  Yes, I guess we could know more about Laura, Hawkeye's wife.  But in a handful of scenes, with a few lines, Whedon skilfully establishes that she is smart, perceptive, and level-headed; in fact, her conversation with Hawkeye is fairly pivotal in keeping him on the team, and in turn keeping the team together.  Could she have done the same if she wasn't 'just' a stay-at-home mother?  Yeah, she probably could have.  But bear in mind also that Whedon wanted to make audiences think that Hawkeye could potentially die in this film, and he was gently satirising the way in which war films kill off people who refer to their family or loved-ones back home.

So a deeper consideration of the context, characters and story telling in this film, in my opinion, would indicate that the feminist anger directed at this film is largely misjudged.  There are further criticisms that simply don't hold up, that Black Widow doesn't do enough ass-kicking or wise cracking (err, sorry, but she knocks up quite the tally of Hydra henchmen, mercenaries, and Ultron Drones, I think you'll find, and she delivers at least 3 witty lines whilst she does so); and that Wanda 'Scarlett Witch' Maximoff (Elisabeth Olsen) is portrayed as neither bad-ass nor wise-cracking enough (you obviously missed the part where she's an angry opponent of the Avengers, so 'wise-cracking' her way through that wouldn't have been appropriate; and you clearly missed the moments where she decimates a load of Ultron Drones with her Telekinetic powers.  Oh, and the bit where she literally tears out Ultron's heart in grief-filled rage; that's pretty bad-ass if you ask me).  To the women (and men) angry at the way female characters are portrayed in this film, I recommend watching the film again, bearing in mind my arguments, and see to what extent your criticisms hold up; I'm not entirely sure they do.  And to all the other Trolls who have jumped on these criticisms as an excuse to tear down a man after he finally hit mainstream success and respect with the first Avengers movie - I leave you with James Gunn's words:

"Anger - especially aggressive and abusive anger - is a way to deal with feeling insecure, sad, hurt, vulnerable, powerless, fearful, or confused. Those feelings, for many of us, are a lot more difficult to deal with and acknowledge than anger. Anger makes us feel "right". And powerful. But it also usually exacerbates whatever the underlying, more uncomfortable feeling is... whatever these angry tweeters are in need of, I don't think it's more anger and more rage thrown back at them on Twitter. I actually think that's what they're seeking. But what they need is something different. Compassion, maybe? A kind request for boundaries? I don't know."

If you're angry, that's up to you - but find a cause that deserves your anger; in the real world, not at fictional characters and those that write them...