Battle Royale - Review

It's been a while since I've reviewed a non-new release. I really should write more of them, since one of the main reasons I started this blog was to introduce or re-introduce moviegoers to film they may not have heard of or at least haven't seen in a while. Right now, I can't think of a better movie to review than the 2000 cult classic Japanese film, Battle Royale. In my mostly negative review of The Hunger Games, one of my main critiques was that it was basically a neutered down ripoff of Battle Royale. I re-watched the Battle Royale after viewing The Hunger Games to see if the former actually held up or if I had spoken too soon. Does Battle Royale still deliver the goods or has the concept lost its luster?

Battle Royale is based on the novel of the same name by Koushun Takami. Both the novel and the film takes place in early 21st century Japan. The country's economy and government is all but in ruins. Unemployment is at an all time high and crime rates have risen exponentially, with the country's youth at the forefront of it's crimes. In an effort to control the rebellious teenagers, the government approves the Battle Royale Act, a program where one class of 42 students is randomly selected to fight in a vicious 3-day battle to the death. The students are taken to a remote island, given a small bag of food, water, and a weapon. They're also forced to wear electric collars which instantly kill the wearer should they tamper with them or find a way off the island. After the 3 day time limit, if more than one student is still standing, everyone's collar explodes and nobody survives. With time as a factor, the once-peaceful students are forced to either kill their friends and companions... or find a way to beat the system.

I'm going to try my best to avoid comparing Battle Royale to The Hunger Games. It wouldn't be fair to Battle Royale, since the movie pre-dates The Hunger Games by nearly a decade. Still, because The Hunger Games is fresh in so many people's minds (myself included), I might feel compelled to make a comparison here and there. With that said, I'm just going to get this out of the way... which one is better, Hunger Games or Battle Royale? Well, despite the nearly identical premise, they're actually quite different. One is a compelling and suspenseful, action packed satirical thriller with top notch filmmaking and interesting characters. The other is a below average action film geared toward teenage audiences that, despite a promising setup and cast, bombards you with shoddy camera work, bland action, stale characters, goofy costume, derivative production design, and a watered down message because it's filmmakers were too afraid to take it's promising themes into the compelling dark depth the film so-very-much wanted to go. In other words... Battle Royale makes The Hunger Games it's bitch!

Okay... I promise to stop talking trash about The Hunger Games. Despite my less-than-enthusiastic review, I really don't hate the movie as much as I let on. The truth is... I just like to piss off geeks and fanboys. I say that full well knowing that I am a huge nerd myself, but I digress. With all that said... let's move onto Battle Royale.

It's easy to see why Battle Royale has become such a prominent cult classic. The topic of teens slaughtering each other may not seem quite as taboo as it did ten years ago thanks to the release of the aforementioned flick with a similar concept (I know, I promised), but to see just how far this movie is willing to go is quite mind blowing. I don't consider myself a foreign film expert, but many films I've seen to come out of Japan have been pretty sick (huge understatement in some cases), so I can't say I was totally surprised or shocked to see how far Battle Royale went, especially with my background in the horror genre. Still, it's hard to deny that this is one hell of a violent movie. Basically it takes the pacing and setting of a survivalist thriller and throws in the over-the-top gore of a splatter-house flick. It's made all the more gut-wrenching when you remember that all the violence it being done to or by a bunch of 14-year-olds. Fortunately, Battle Royale doesn't go straight for shock value. The action scenes are shot and carried out with an eye for suspense and tension. In other words, it's full of well-framed shots plus a good sense of pacing. It's one hell of a thrilling ride from start to finish.

So the film is action packed and excessively violent, that much is known, but the main question is this... does the story pack an equal punch? For the most part... yes. I don't want to over-praise it, seeing how the script has a few hiccups here and there, but overall it's pretty damn good. It's themes of youth rebellion and governmental collapse rings similar to Kubrick's 1971 classic, "A Clockwork Orange." (One of my favourite films of all time). The idea that Japan would result to pitting it's youth against each other in a barbaric fight to the death is admittedly a little far fetched, but it nonetheless presents an interesting "what-if" scenario that's intriguing to watch... even if it can't help but come off as a little preachy. I liked the way the film tried to set up each of it's characters as well. Even though the acting can't help but come off as a little melodramatic, the characters in their own right were pretty interesting. Some were given backstories while others were limited to just being in the background. Fortunately, the writers made the effort to give as many as they could some degree of depth. Few of them are generic evil or good, but rather have certain shades of grey which make them feel more human. Some of the most memorable moments came from the students being forced to kill or be killed, and just how their actions affected their psyche. It's pretty intense stuff that rarely lets up and is all but guaranteed to stick with you long after you finish watching it.

Now don't get me wrong, Battle Royale isn't for everyone. The gratuitous violence and edgy subject matter is bound to be too much for some, but for anyone that can handle the buckets of blood, this one is definitely recommended. Not a perfect movie, but a very good one and a must watch for anyone who can handle it.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Avengers - Review

Every so often, a movie announcement will come along that will make all the nerds and fanboys scream with glee. Back in the mid 2000s, Marvel Comics announced that they were going to buy back as many of their characters and properties as they could with the intention of creating an expansive in-continuity multi-film universe akin to their expansive comic book universe. This, in itself, was pretty cool, but the biggest news was yet to come. In 2008, Marvel Studios released Iron Man, the first Marvel film in their experimental movie continuity. The major announcement came in a special scene after the credits, where Nick Fury came up to Tony Stark, and said two words that made every nerd's jaw hit the floor... "Avenger Initiative!!!" To the comic book uninitiated, this might have not meant much, but for all the nerds, geeks, and fanboys, this blew our minds!!! Just the thought of a series of films building up to one epic team-up of some of Marvel's biggest and greatest superheroes to ever exist would be one of the coolest and most ambitious filmmaking endeavours to ever be attempted. Now four years and five movies later, The Avengers has hit theatres. Does it live up to the hype???

So as mentioned, The Avengers follows the events of five previous Marvel films. They include Iron Man 1 & 2, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor. In addition to the main characters, certain story elements from each film makes is implemented into The Avengers. Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the Norse God of Mischief, makes his way Earth after his supposed defeat at the hands of his brother Thor. He infiltrates the government agency SHIELD, in efforts to steal the Tesseract, (known to comic fans as the cosmic cube) an artifact that will grant him the power to conquer the planet (the same artifact from Captain America). With the fate of the world at risk, SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assembles a team of Earth's mightiest heroes to save the world from certain doom. Leading the team is the war hero, Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Chris Evans), fighting alongside him is technological genius/playboy Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the Norse God of Thunder Thor (Chris Hemsworth), scientist-turned-monster Bruce Banner aka The Incredible Hulk, SHEILD agent Natasha Romanov aka Black Widow (Scarlett Johansen), and SHIELD soldier/marksman Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). While time is a factor, the team must overcome their personal differences in order to save the world from certain destruction.

Now, I'll be first to admit that the story behind this concept is pretty standard and almost face slappingly simple. It's your typical hero(es) takes on the evil villain bent on destroying the world. On the surface, there's nothing particularly inventive, but The Avengers has two things going for the premise that gives it a bit more flair. The first of which is the aforementioned previous-movie build-up. Since the movie had five movies released prior to this one introducing it's numerous characters, The Avengers doesn't have to spend a large portion of it's runtime introducing any of them in great detail. They provide the basic character intros and refreshers that get you up to speed and provide just enough exposition to get the story in motion.

The other shining element of The Avengers screenplay is the character interactions. Here is a movie with writers that know how to get the most out of a story with a group of characters with dynamic traits and personalities. The screenplay itself was provided compliments of Zak Penn and geek icon Joss Whedon (who also directed the film). Whedon himself brought his trademark writing sensibilities from his hit sci-fi/fantasy movies and shows like Serenity/Firefly and Buffy, and brought them the Marvel Universe. Namely that it's character interactions are what ultimately raise The Avengers from being simplistic and average to well above average. There's an engaging group dynamic that keeps the story moving and makes the conflict more suspenseful. There's tension between Stark and Rogers, a meeting of geniuses between Stark and Banner, the sibling rivalry of Thor and Loki, a subtle romantic subplot between Black Widow and Hawkeye, and Nick Fury trying to keep the team together. Amongst the drama however, is a solid sense of pacing and thrilling action, with a few memorably humorous bits to keep the movie light-hearted when it needs to be. Now, I don't want to over-praise this script here too much. Fanboyism aside, The Avengers is a thoroughly above average script aided by it's charismatic actors (more on that next), solid pacing, and mostly well-developed characters. It's neither deep nor particularly inventive, but for a straightforward superhero team-up action movie, it has just about everything you would expect and hits nearly all of the requisite notes.

For me, what ultimately elevated The Avengers from being good to great, is the excellent cast. The team of heroes features nearly every actor returning from their previous Marvel franchise, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo as the new Bruce Banner/Hulk (apparently Edward Norton, the previous Hulk, had a falling out with the producers). My first concern when this film was in development was how all of these actors could come together without any one actor upstaging another. Fortunately, I am happy to report that every actor brings a certain charm to this movie and their respective characters with a near-perfect balance of development and interaction. There's a natural sense of chemistry between the cast, and while there are a few stand-out performances, each one has great appeal and at least one moment to shine. The first stand-out performance, however, is probably Tom Hiddleston returning as the villainous Loki. They took what was arguably the best part of Thor and gave the Avengers a suitably evil and intelligent villain to oppose. It doesn't delve as much into his personal struggles as they did in Thor, but he brings the same depth to his performance here that worked so well the first time.

The other stand-out actor, as everyone has been talking about, is Mark Ruffalo as the new Hulk. Oddly enough, The Incredible Hulk is one of Marvel's more recognizable heroes, yet few people have any fond feelings for the Hulk's previous film outings. He's mainly known for the campy yet entertaining show starring Lou Ferrigno (who does the voice of the Hulk here too). After that, there was the Ang Lee-directed 2003 movie Hulk... a good effort yet disappointing movie. A few years later, he returned in the very fun and underrated 2008 and Avenger-connected film, The Incredible Hulk (seriously, very few people saw that movie, despite the fact that it's actually quite good). I think this might be the turning point for the character, as many of the film's stand out scenes, especially the action scenes, are memorably carried out by Ruffalo both as Dr. Banner and his great motion capture work as the Hulk himself. He brings a certain vulnerability and depth to his Banner persona while allowing him to go nuts and have fun as his monstrous alter-ego. In other words, Hulk smashed my expectations.

Now with all that said, I imagine most people are going into this movie expecting the requisite big budget action. If that's what your going in for, I can all but guarantee that you'll leave happy. You expecting some brutal one-on-one fights between heroes and villains (or even heroes and heroes)... you've got it! Or maybe you're looking for some giant cgi monsters... there's those too. How about loads of property destruction and massive explosions... yeah, you're covered! The action is certainly erratic, but well shot and never overly daunting. It's big and loud for sure, but it doesn't bombard you to a point that you can't follow what's happening (thank God Michael Bay didn't direct this). If all you're looking for is your standard summer blockbuster action, this has pretty much everything you could want.

Now, with all the film's pros, there are a couple little things to nitpick. The first little hiccup comes on behalf of Captain America. When we last saw him at the end of his movie, he had been frozen for nearly 70 years, only to be discovered and thawn out by SHIELD. There's little mention of how he had adjusted to the new setting or his new updated costume. By the way, while Cap's new modern outfit is pretty cool, it doesn't quite have the same pulpy-retro appeal of his WWII uniform. On that note, Hawkeye's outfit comes off as rather boring compared to the colorful costumes of his counterparts. I don't know what they couldn't have designed one more akin to his comic book counterpart. There are a few bits of character development that feel a tad bit rushed too, namely Dr. Banner's transformation to the Hulk right before the finale (you'll know when you see it). From what I've been told, a lot has been cut out of this to cut down the runtime. That's the catch I suppose, sacrificing a few relatively unneeded plot points in favor of better pacing. Personally, considering the subject matter, I'm amazed the film feels as tight as it is. So there's a few little nitpicks and hiccups, but nothing major.

In short, The Avengers is just about everything you could ever want in a big budget blockbuster. You've got sweet action, awesome special effects, fun characters, an enjoyable story, and sharp direction from Joss Whedon. It's not too violent for the kids nor too dumb for the adults. Marvel's mega-ambitious experiment to bring an inter-connected movie universe culminating in the greatest team-up of live action superheroes may have seemed crazy... but they pulled it off! Definitely check this one out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!