Friday, 24 August 2012

Drinking games you can play at Expendables 2


Directed by Simon West
Starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and a handful of other dudes

My first wildly successful experience with movie boozing was The Expendables. Drinking a half-dozen cans of Pabst felt appropriate in a theatre full of folk shouting and applauding at the movie screen as if they were watching a hockey match at their local bar. During a raucous, howling ovation at Jason Statham igniting a gasoline-doused pier with a flare gun, killing dozen of villains with a mammoth fireball, I remember thinking to myself: “Hot shit, everyone in this movie theatre must be as drunk as I am.” And to this day I hold firm the belief that everyone was.

Flash-forward two years and Sly & the boys are back in town. The original cast is looking even more pumped up than in the first instalment and they’ve corrected past mistakes by including Chuck Norris, Scott Adkins, and the incomparable Jean-Claude Van Damme.

The plot is there is no plot. Seriously. They even forgo creating backstories for some of the characters (i.e. Dolph Lundgren) and instead just drop in factoids about their own personal history (e.g. he was a chemical engineer and Fullbright scholar at MIT). The movie is essentially a $100 million excuse to get the biggest juice-monkeys in Hollywood together (and Liam Hemsworth) and have them kill a bunch of stuff with their testicles.

Vis-à-vis the first movie they’ve seriously cut back on the pontificating and the social commentary. Let me say that again: this movie is less profound than The Expendables. The few scenes where they make even the slightest effort are comically contracted.

--
Sly: Why is it the ones who deserve to die keep on living? What’s the message in that?

[whole audience erupts into laughter]

Randy Couture: I don’t know but I’m hungry. Can we go kill some guys?

Sly: Yes. That.
--

True to form a little drink will help the entire audience get into it. If intelligent alien life were to spy in on a screening of Expendables 2 and draw conclusions about our species from it they would haul ass out of our solar system and label it as a no-fly zone.

The first 10 minutes of this movie has Sly & the boys raiding a military-run village in Tibet in order to free a wealthy civilian hostage. A singular display of carnage ensues, with a body count to rival the whole of action movie history to this point. It had the audience in a giddy state. Rather than think too hard about how disturbing it was for all these people (myself included) to be laughing out loud at the brutalisation of one of the most systematically persecuted nations in the last century, I cracked a second Sagres and said to fellow movieboozer Callum: “Jet Li, man. Still got it.”

There’s a movie somewhere in there with JCVD as the villain (and get this: his character’s name is “Villain” because during scriptwriting Sly got tired of flexing his brain) and some nuclear warheads threatening to hit the black market and blah blah blah, here are some ideas for drinking games to play along with the movie:

  • This game is called All Hale Caesar! Drink a Bloody Caesar shot (half Bloodshot Vodka, half Clamato juice) every time Terry Crews’ pumped-up biceps show up in the frame. As you do the shot you must yell: “All Hale Caesar!” (This is the name of his character because this is the greatest movie ever made) You may replace “biceps showing up” with “shouts,” or “kills someone,” or “does something manly.”

Such as bazookaing a bunch of Tibetan monks.
  • This game is called I versus Sly. Drink until your speech becomes slurred and less comprehensible than Sly’s and then keep it there. You have to repeat one of his lines immediately after him every five minutes as confirmation.
  • Bring along a bottle of the Swedish vodka seriously (seriously, it’s called seriously) and drink a shot of it every time Dolph Lundgren does something stupid.
  • This game is called I’m Out! Every time a character complains about not having enough ammo you have to empty (read chug) your beer, bellow “I’m out!”, and crack a fresh one. (Trust me, you will ruin yourself with this game)
  • This game is called Don’t Lose Your Head. Do a shot of Jägermeister (or whatever) every time someone’s head is severed or explodes. (This will result in moments of intense drunkenness followed by a few lulls followed by intense drunkenness. You will probably kill off a bottle this way)  
  • This game is called Van Damn That's Good Coke! In honour of JCVD's legendary cocaine habit, every time the actor removes his glasses to reveal his hangdog, bloodshot eyes you do a bump of cocaine (90% purity or higher) and a shot of liquid cocaine (equal parts Jägermeister and Goldschläger). You must, of course, yell out "Van DAMN that's good coke!" in a Belgian accent while you're doing this. (Haven't you learned anything by now?)

Damage: 5/10 (pre-movie: 110 ml Babicka wormwood vodka; during: 4 x 330 ml Sagres beer)

Boozy rating: 14/10 (The Expendables was 10 and this was not as good as the original, so it becomes a 9. However, any movie starring Jean-Claude Van Damme automatically gets a +5 rating so here we are)

--
NEXT WEEK: Either Ted or Bored Legacy




Monday, 23 July 2012

The Dark Knight Rises


Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine.

*** Contains spoilers in the second half. I will indicate where so please READ CAREFULLY.***

The review is as much for me as it is for anyone else. The Dark Knight Rises release marked the culmination of six months’ anticipation and, unlike the two previous Batman instalments, it was sorely disappointing. Since I knew this stance would be an unpopular one, I have spent much of last night and today pondering why I thought the movie was such a huge letdown. In effort to describe what I thought was faulty about The Dark Knight Rises, I have synthesised a review in two parts.

The first I will try to keep spoiler-free (since trailers have done a good job of piquing interest while revealing little of the plot) and the second part will be full-on, spoiler-filled but will more thoroughly address the core failings of the film. I will note when this review segues from part I to II.

Part I: Spoiler-free

The narrative picks up eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. The deaths of Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes have thrust Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) into a reclusive lifestyle and also provided Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) with a strong mandate to rid Gotham of organised crime. In these détente times, both crime fighters seem listless and impotent.

Soon enough, however, a madman following in the footsteps of Liam Neeson’s Ra’s al Ghul and Heath Ledger’s magnificent Joker threatens to plunge Gotham back into violence and chaos. Bane is played as a force of nature by rising star Tom Hardy, replacing Joker’s sinister, sociopathic menace with brutish physicality and surprising intelligence. It is clear that he and his plans for Gotham are pure evil and stopping them will require every ounce of Batman’s waning strength and resolve.  The road to their final showdown is two-and-a-half hours long and the climax unsatisfying.

Hathaway: underdeveloped but hot damn that catsuit
For a 165 minute movie there isn’t much to sink your teeth into. The film introduces this new villain, the slinky, ambivalent Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), young heartstrong cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and a slew of other characters and ideas but fails to develop any of them substantively.

This is what’s wrong with the movie. It’s the first time that Chris Nolan has failed as a storyteller, a quality that has always been his greatest career asset. Rather than letting the plot unfold, he hurls it at you. The film is like watching almost three hours of back-to-back montages. I struggle to remember any scenes in this movie; points where it exits Ludicrous Speed, the Huge String Section Epic Movie Score relents, and characters interact for more than 15 seconds before a cutaway. Granted, Nolan films habitually move along at a brisk pace, but he’s always found time to produce great character moments; like Leonard’s description of his wife to Natalie in Memento or when a naive Bruce Wayne confronts crime boss Carmine Falcone early in Batman Begins. These moments simply don’t exist here.

Perhaps even more problematic are the myriad plot deficiencies. I was willing to forgive the ones in Dark Knight (like that nonsense escapade to Hong Kong) because they were less glaring and because that movie ultimately owned. But Chris and brother/screenwriting partner Jonathan Nolan are just asking for way too much slack this time around. It’s difficult to expand on this point without over-revealing, so more to follow in the spoiler section.

The last nails in the lid of the coffin are the characters. Don’t misunderstand, Bale, Hardy, Oldman, Hathaway, JGL, and Michael Caine all do the absolute best with what they’re given. The performances are beyond reproach. It’s the characters themselves that are hugely inconsistent. In most cases their motivations are muddled, and the way they execute them defies reason and ignores the character roots that Nolan spends an hour establishing. What made the Joker a great villain (beyond Ledger’s singular performance) was that he was a great character. Sure, he was a complete lunatic but, in the scope of the Dark Knight, was internally consistent in his lunacy. His actions always made sense in a Joker sort of way.

Lesser complaints include the surprising lack of action in the film, too little/too much emphasis being placed on certain characters, and the climax not being as exciting as I thought fitting for the “epic conclusion” to this Batman saga. As with Dark Knight’s deficiencies, it would have been easy to overlook some of these if, at the core, Rises actually worked. But it doesn’t. In any way.

***Beyond this glorious picture of the Joker lies part II of the review during which I literally SPOIL THE ENTIRE FILM. Please read only if you have already seen it. You have been warned.***














Part II: Spoilers and discussion

Alright, I’ll expand on what’s been discussed in Part I; that nothing about the plot or its characters makes a lick of sense.

Caine as Alfred, one of many unjustly treated characters
My earliest major objection was to disappearing Alfred within the first half-hour. I’m one of the rare few who generally dislikes Michael Caine’s performances (and most of his movies) and I still thought he acted the living shit out of Rises. Beyond that, his character has always been a moral and emotional compass for Bruce Wayne, and a necessary one in the absence of a Robin character. Even if you liken his departure to Katharine Ross in Butch & Sundance (i.e. being unwilling to watch the man he loves die) it still doesn’t ring true. Alfred knew the dangers that Bruce Wayne faced from the onset and was never so lily-livered that he’d bow out when the going got tough (anyone remember Dark Knight and his huge speech on ENDURING?). I think this decision was made purely to speed the movie along, like dispatching Franka Potente two-thirds of the way through Bourne Identity when it became expedient for the plot. The irony is that Rises continues for two hours beyond that.

Catwoman is also completely mishandled. I was comfortable with her being a burglar/modern day Robin Hood. But here’s the problem: if her character is one of principle, there’s no way that she’d shank Batman and ally herself with a megalomaniac and his army of zealots. The argument that she did it for survival is facile and weak. Bane had bigger fish to fry, looser ends to tie up, and she should have known that. A career criminal of her calibre could have escaped pre-ruin Gotham with little difficulty. If, conversely, she was completely nihilistic (which seems rather unlikely from her dialogue), there’s no way she stays and fights at the end. If this incongruity is meant to be her character’s “journey,” then Nolan really has done a poor job of getting her convincingly from point A to point B.

Christian Bale has zero romantic chemistry with either of the two female leads. Having said that, when has Christian Bale had any romantic chemistry with anyone? Why bother?

The movie comes majorly off the rails with the Bane character. Making him an ostracised disciple of Ra’s al Ghul, still determined to carry out League of Shadows work, is a gigantic problem. As artistic liberties go it's a completely unnecessary one, born of some misplaced desire to make the trilogy come full circle. If Bane is trying to finish Ra’s work, and Ra’s plan was to destroy Gotham, why doesn’t he just destroy Gotham? Why is it necessary for the city to live as a would-be anarchist state for five months before it explodes?

Ra’s readily admits in Batman Begins that he tried and failed to kill Gotham the slow way (through economic stagnation). Undaunted, he travels there with a small army and disperses a destructive neurotoxin across the city. Bane, supposedly brilliant yet somehow completely unwilling to learn from his predecessor’s mistakes, twiddles his thumbs for half a year and leaves Batman, the one man capable of unravelling his plan, alive and unguarded. Why does he stick him in a prison in South America? How does Bane even GET THERE? Why is Wayne’s escape [insert gas mask voice] “Impossible!”? He’s a MOTHERFUCKING TRAINED NINJA!

Nevermind that. It’s cathartic. Just watch and accept, right?

Even more ridiculous is Bruce Wayne’s escape and return to Gotham (conveniently) 15-or-so hours before the bomb goes off with no money or passport. Speaking of which, the fact that all the characters also somehow know exactly when the bomb is going off is in itself absurd and inexplicable. The “time bomb” premise is predicated upon the nuclear device becoming unstable. By definition, unstable explosives do not detonate by timer. It’s like this movie was written by monkeys.

Bane vs. Batman: the epic showdown is hardly that
The conclusion of the film is a giant goddamn catastrophe. The epic final battle between cops and mercenaries should be worthy of all the clashes in Braveheart, Gladiator, and Star Wars. This trilogy deserves that. Instead, its scope is essentially restricted to some close shots of Bane and Batman trading blows – a final mano-a-mano that is not nearly as bone-crunching or emotionally involving as their sewer fight. On the whole, adherence to a PG-13/12A rating keeps their battles from being primal, visceral, and brutal as they should be.

Revealing Miranda Tate as Talia al Ghul straight up kills the movie. It weakens – to the point of invalidating – Bane as a villain, and Batman by extension. Bane could have been an effective nemesis with no mention of the al Ghul family. He unmasks and cripples Batman. He takes control of Gotham. He’s surrounded by an army of highly-trained zealots who literally die at his command. Then, for no reason and to little positive effect (because what does it ADD to the movie, really?), it’s revealed that he’s not actually the mastermind. He is in fact no more than Talia’s attack dog – unwaveringly obedient and willing to sacrifice himself out of idolatry for her. Bane, the beast, the monolith, the man who broke the Bat, is no different from the horde of automatons that does his bidding. It makes him pathetic and Batman’s defeat at his hands even more so.

The second reason why revealing Miranda as Talia is stupid is because it’s fucking stupid. Are we expected to forget that she spent all her time in post-ruin Gotham embedded with the resistance?! Wouldn’t she have, oh, I don’t know, blown the whistle on them a thousand times over? Wouldn’t that have nullified any chance of her master plan being thwarted?

JGL: on point but misused
The final minutes also reek of foul play by Warner Brothers. I already thought that JGL played too prominent a role in someone else’s film. This is Batman’s last film and it almost felt like JGL was the main character. Revealing him as Robin in the denouement was hackneyed studio trickery. It transforms Rises from a concluding chapter (which has been its tagline from the beginning) to the introduction of yet another money-making superhero spinoff sequel. Beyond that trespass, Nolan has always adamantly opposed to the inclusion of Robin in his films. To not only include him but give him lion’s share of running time is a violation of the Batman universe Nolan set forth to create. It strips authorial control from one of cinema’s last remaining auteurs.

I wanted so badly to like this film. Stepping into the theatre I was in fact unshakably convinced I would. Whether Nolan was strong-armed into doing the studio’s bidding or whether he dropped the ball on his own is inconsequential. Rises’ failures are irrefutable and absolute.

Thursday, 5 July 2012

I don't usually do trailers but holy shit guys

Basically, there are no other movies but this movie.



And yes, the RZA is writing, directing, composing, and starring as a small-village blacksmith in feudal China. You could put Rian Johnson, Chris Nolan, Uwe Boll, David O. Russell, and Charlie Kaufman in a room together for the rest of their natural lives and they could not come up with better.

Life, dear friends, is good.

Friday, 29 June 2012

The Five-Year Engagement and why soliders love romantic comedies

Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Alison Brie, Rhys Ifans, Chris Parnell, Kevin Hart, Mindy Kaling, Randall Park, Mimi Kennedy, and David Paymer

This week my body went on strike. By Sunday evening it was all, like:

Body: You don’t treat me fairly so that’s that. Until further notice I don’t work for you no more.

Ben: But… wait… no, no, imma need you to do stuff this week.

Body: Well shucks, I guess you shoulda thought of that before you decided black sambuca on a Sunday night was a good idea.

So instead of a Boozy Wednesday, Martyn and I took in a romantic comedy on our straightmatedate night, my fare of choice on days when I’m feeling haggard. The Five-Year Engagement  is taking a lot of flack from reviewers and I’d like to use this forum as a sort of counterweight. Not only are they all wrong in their assessments of what I perceive as a very fine picture, but people’s ideas in general about romantic comedy seem awfully misguided.

It may surprise readers to discover that romantic comedy is among my favourite film genres. Unexpected, sure, since this column is essentially a tribute to huge dudes who beat each other senseless and women taking their gear off, both of which are generally absent from rom-coms.

A second major surprise (and one which perhaps goes some ways towards explaining my penchant for them): soldiers love these movies. They’ll never confess to it, but they eat rom-com goop up like the viscous centre of a chocolate fondant. It’s a discovery I made while on the mother-of-all-tedious-taskings, which essentially consisted of a company of men having their asses parked in their rooms or in a pickup truck for months on end. This is not a good place for hundreds of guys on high protein diets to be.

The rec centre, which lent out DVDs, was a frequent destination for most. When signing out a DVD I would always catch a glimpse of what dudes in my platoon were checking out and found myself perplexed by what I discovered. Sure, there were the obligatory “Rah! Rah! Guns! Fuck yeah!” guys who would borrow out The Condemned or 12 Rounds or some other ungodliness. But a majority were opting for unlikely flicks such as 17 Again or Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. And the guys who were watching them were not 18-year-old recruits who lived with mommy and still drank warm milk with their meals. These were hardened, Afghanistan-tested Warrant Officers who’d been pronounced dead in IED attacks before climbing out of the truck, dusting themselves off, and telling the medic: “Just playing possum to see how you’d react. WOs don’t die. We just sleep it off for a few minutes.”

So I would return to my tiny, shared quarters, left to ponder the mystery of why these consummate hardasses were going so ga-ga over Matthew McConaughey wearing scarves. After some deliberation, I came to these conclusions about the rom-com genre:

  • It is imbued with a certain innocence. In a way that almost never feels condescending towards the viewer, these films manage to give both the good and bad characters their due and deliver a conclusion that is satisfying and just.
  • They are movies that concern themselves primarily with making the viewer HAPPY.
  • They are unpretentious (this can often lead to the lower end of the quality spectrum catering to the lowest common denominator but whatever, I’d still rather watch that than I’m Not There or whatever other movie decided it needed to be all the way up in its own ass to, like, find the appendix or something).
  • Rom-coms care about their characters and therefore care about people. Conversely, the crew that created Oldboy are cinematic visionaries, no doubt, but dude I remember watching that movie and not feeling human by the end.


A bad week in the army calls for next-level escapism, and soldiers aren't always allowed to drink. Rom-com is just the next best thing.

And so I feel the standards by which rom-coms are judged to be generally unfair. They are not taken seriously because they aspire to enliven audiences and make them laugh rather than get too concerned by fancy production design and cinematography. Critics, audiences, and the Academy reward movies like Shakespeare in Love or Titanic that are 100% artifice yet take themselves so seriously that their workaday, melodramatic sentimentality becomes all the more nauseating. Clearly, because Jim Cameron spent 200 mil on this movie it’s a great work of art (it must be, right?) and Jack & Rose are part of an immutable film canon of star-crossed lovers. But make a film like Dedication on a shoestring budget with an independent director unafraid of black humour and it’s derided mercilessly as annoying or saccharine.

Blunt and Segel: charming to the last
One is a nihilistic wank-fest whose characters are ciphers (not to mention all morons) and the other is brimming with inspired performances by some of the industry’s finest and actually motivates you to be a better person and embrace life. But fuck do I hate critics sometimes.

They try to bust out the same Hatorade on The Five-Year Engagement, a modest, pleasant story about a couple (played Emily Blunt and Jason Segel) whose delayed nuptials exacerbate their differences, strain their relationship, and bring forth bitterness and insecurity. It’s a clever film with strong leads, plenty of laughs, and that also takes a lot of risks – uncommon for something of this ilk. Still, most critics are determined to deep-six this slow-burner of a film for reasons that are invalid or just plain wrong. Let’s take a look at some of the popular defamation:

“It’s overdrawn.”

That’s. The whole. POINT. It’s not The Six-Month Engagement. It’s FIVE YEARS. The movie wouldn’t be doing its job if it tied up all its loose ends in 86 minutes. I respect a mainstream studio film that chances a 2+ hour running time and challenges its audience to stick with it. “We’re gonna make it feel like five years,” is what the film says and does, and kudos to director Nichols Stoller for that. It’s a bold move and it works because you invest in the characters, and their journey is real and compelling.

“The gags and set-pieces are contrived.”

And people lined up to watch The Artist because…

“The ending is bland and unsatisfying.”

This is the critique befalling rom-coms that I hate the most. We don’t watch these movies expecting them to throw us a curveball at the end. We watch them categorically because we trust them not to. This is the point I was trying to make before about soldiers loving syrupy romantic comedies. When you’re in an environment characterised by extreme boredom, aggressive, authoritarian leadership, or huge quantities of death you want a movie that keeps it positive and sustains your faith in humanity. HOW IS THIS A BAD THING?

“The supporting cast is one-dimensional.”

Booze: the way to any woman's heart.
This is just patently false. One of the great joys of FYE  is watching Chris Pratt, Segel’s laddish, comically irresponsible sous-chef best friend, transform into a respectable gent. It’s a change that occurs naturally, adds dimension to the film, and counterpoints the leading man. Similarly engaging is Rhys Ifans’ pompous, slithering psychology professor and Emily Blunt’s mentor – a villain the audience loves to hate but can also understand Blunt’s illicit attraction to. Most, if not all, the supporting cast evolves throughout the film – not merely the leads.

This is a good movie any way you cut it. Stoller’s direction is competent and well-paced, bringing his and Segel’s script and characters to life. Everyone onscreen is a pleasure to watch; each actor given their chance to shine in a movie that delivers memorable comic moments without feeling obliged to crank jokes out gratuitously. Plus Jason Segel is basically the most obscenely LIKABLE screen presence in American cinema since Jimmy Stewart. There. I said it.

This movie cures common cold, hangovers, and probably cancer too. Just go see it and enjoy your lives, you grumpy, misanthropic bastards.


Thursday, 10 May 2012

The Avengers

Directed by Joss Whedon
Starring Fuckin everybody

A long time had been spent in anticipation of this film. I had waited for the DVD releases of Captain A, the Hulk, Thor, and did not drink my way through either of the Ironmans, much to my chagrin. When Downey and I hang out he still shakes his head at me in disappointment. And I try to tell it from my side, like:

Ben: No, but seriously it was a matinee and there were kids there and stuff.

Bob: So? Did having kids around ever stop Michael Jackson?

Ben: Yeah, fair point.

Hugely saddened was I to learn that movieboozer Martyn would not be attending this week’s session. I was happy to have guest moviegoer Cedric joining me, but he does not drink at the movies. He eats popcorn like a normal person.

I remained relatively sober for the screening of this film. Good thing too: not only did I still derive pleasure from the action sequences and appreciate how huge all of the actors looked, but I also understood The Avengers as the racist parable it clearly is.

Hollywood racism has essentially existed forever, in varying degrees of covertness. That is, until about 10 years ago when a couple of Kiwis decided to go pretty balls-out, Klantastic with the moviemaking. LOTR was a mess, back-to-front. Gandalf the White? Huh, what? All the orcs and Uruk-hai are dark-skinned, aren’t they? C’mon people, look at the elves. Just look at the fucking ELVES.


Where are the black elves at, eh? Hebrew Hammer and Bad Santa both had black elves with only about 5% the budget. Just give Will Smith, Danny Glover, and Tiny Lister some wigs and let them go to work. Best elf posse ever, I say.

Anyway, since 2001 it’s pretty much been open season for big studios to do whatever they want at the expense of whatever minority (except for the Jews, who nobody can fuck with anymore because we have Jon Stewart AND Krav Maga and we’ll break your shit off; seriously, test us). Because Joss Whedon is behind The Avengers and he’s a clever bigot a lot of the stuff in here is subtle and he figures it’ll just go below the radar and seep into moviegoer subconscious. Of course, he didn’t consider that I would be sober and when I’m sober I have superpowers too. Like seeing straight through all your racist bullshit, Joss Whedon.

Let me start by saying there’s only 1 (one) black person in this movie and he’s handicapped. That’s just rubbing salt in the wound. It’s a clear jab since Nick Fury is meant to be white but clearly some Marvel Studio exec was like: “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if we added a black guy who had useless superpowers like having watermelons for hands??!!” And Joss Whedon was like: “No. You’re an idiot. But I’ll think of something else.” And then Joss Whedon decided “Ok, let’s just make that useless crippled guy black for no reason and, to add insult to injury, let’s force the most virile, respected, hard-working, and highest-grossing black actor in Hollywood to play him.” And behold, Sam Jackson was blind and useless. Seriously, if you remove him from the film: same outcome. That’s racist.

Has every reason to be an angry douche.
Loki is the villain in this film and you could make the argument that because he’s Asgardian it’s fair play. Only he isn’t Asgardian; he’s a Frost Giant. Folks discover this in Thor and guess what happens. Yeah, he gets exiled. This guy Loki is just standing around, minding his own business, when suddenly his own people are all up in his grill like: “Um, well, we know you’ve been here since infancy but as it turns out you’re not a white dude like the rest of us so we’re gonna have to deport your sorry blue ass.” And yeah, they actually FUCKING DEPORT HIM. That’s racist. No wonder he’s angry.

And then, really, this entire Avengers movie is about Loki crossing into Earth’s realm without a visa or any kind of official papers, reaping the fruits of American labour, and then getting all his buddies over the fence until we’re outnumbered. If Joss Whedon wants to make a 2-and-a-half-hour allegorical film about border issues he should at least have had the balls to cast Danny Trejo as Loki. Or that guy Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite.

Scar-Jo is Natasha Romanoff, a former Russian spy who has about six lines in the movie, three of which are: “I have red in my ledger. I need to get it out.” Get the Red out?! Duh, Soviets. Racist.

Those space creatures that try to destroy NYC at the end of the movie are clearly the fucking Chinese. They swoop down from the sky Red Dawn-style in huge numbers. They have superior technology, all look the same, and their boss monster… c’mon folks.





That’s racist.

The clincher, for me, is when Captain America gets worried that his star-spangled suit will be “a little old-fashioned” and S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson reassures him that “people might just need a little old-fashioned.” Nice one. You know what else was old-fashioned? Slavery.


 SHAZZING! Schooled you, Whedon.

So what have we learned, in a nutshell, from The Avengers? Fuck immigrants, we deport them. Fuck the Soviets; we know the Cold War is over but they can eat shit. Fuck the Chinese too, for that matter. There’s too many of them and they have bad teeth. Fuck all blue people like Frost Giants and Smurfs and those tall dudes from Avatar. Because America needs to be protected from the forces of evil. Fuck yeah.

I feel like I saw this movie eight years ago. Only with puppets. Pretty sure Sam Jackson was in that one too, actually.

Damage: 1/10 (70 ml babička wormwood vodka)

Boozy rating: 1/10 (WTF Joss seriously)