#85 Swept Away (2002) (Colin)

Swept Away was a 2002 film directed by Guy Ritchie and is a remake of the 1974 movie of the same name by Lina Wertmueller.  Wetmueller's version caused quite a storm with its portrayal of violence against women but is critically acclaimed and recognised as a thought provoking piece of cinema questioning the role of man and woman. It explores society, power and politics in an unflinching and sometimes uncomfortable way.

Although it may not be one of those movies which everyone has heard off, the fact that it did garner interest and is discussed in various circles means that there is awareness of this film.  The critical acclaim would also suggest that the first effort was rather good or at least particularly interesting.  Why then did Ritchie decide to remake it?  This is the first thing that bothers me, long before I have even picked up the DVD out of the reduced section of my local Cash Converters, (other rip off stolen second hand goods stores are available).  I would not be daft enough to compare Swept Away with say, Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but if it was good enough, started the debate and carries on being relevant today, why in blazes interfere with it and try to make it 'better'?  Ritchie must have know he was setting himself up for a fall.

Indeed I did not realise until coming to write this blog, that Ritchie appears to be regarded as somewhat of a 'weak' director and that his most famous films, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, are regarded as 'style over substance'.  That is harsh, I mean Pulp Fiction could also be regarded in this way.  I remember a review in the UK newspaper 'The Mirror' which described Pulp Fiction as 2 men in a car discuss cheeseburgers in Quentin Tarantino's lame follow up to Reservoir Dogs.  Now we are all entitled to an opinion but the guy who wrote this was clearly a moron.  Yes, storywise you could argue not a lot happens but it's the way it doesn't happen, the telling of the story out of sequence, the fantastic soundtrack and superb cinematography which all makes Pulp Fiction anything but 'lame'.

I would not want to call Ritchie 'Tarantinolite', because that would be unfair but there are similarities in his earlier work.  Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch were gritty but funny, mundane conversations seemed 'cool' and 'trendy' and the filming was quirky and fun.  I liked these movies and remember looking forward to seeing Swept Away in 2002.  But then the reviews started and they were scathing, I could not find a decent review or positive comment.  Despondent but grateful I side stepped it and for 11 years continued to do so.  Then we started this poxy list......

Swept Away is the story of socialite Amber Leighton, (Madonna) and sailor / fisherman Giuseppi Esposito, (Adriano Giannini).  Amber is on a cruise from Greece to Italy with her rich husband, Tony Leighton, (Bruce Greenwood) and a group of her equally rich 'friends'.  Amber is hot headed, rude and arrogant and treats the staff, particularly Giuseppi, with disdain and contempt.  When Amber and Giuseppi's boat breaks down whilst travelling to an island which the rest of her group are visiting, they end up off course and stranded on a deserted island.  Without her money and influence and with Giuseppi's fishing skills and practical knowledge the power balance shifts and it is Giuseppi who has the upper hand.  The pair fall in love whilst in their private world but this is ultimately doomed once they are rescued and return to their respective roles in modern society.

The first thing you will notice, if you have watched the original 1974 film, is that Ritchie sticks very closely to the original.  Sometimes far too closely.  They are huge chunks of dialogue which I recognise straight away from the original and wonder why Ritchie did not improve, change or alter in any way. There are scenes, also, which as far as I can tell, are also cut and pasted from the original.  Remakes should surely offer something new or there really is no point and you may as well watch the first version.  It is a bit like cover bands who release albums of the music of the band they are covering!  I have never understood, say, a Foo Fighters tribute band releasing an album of Foo Fighters covers.  I imagine people buy this and think, 'wow, they sound so much like the original', whereas I think, 'Erm, then why not just listen to the original'.  Anyway, I digress.....

One element Ritchie has omitted from his version though and I think that this is a massive mistake on his part, is the political element of the story.  In the 1974 version, the Amber and Giuseppi characters, (called Raffaella, (Marianglea Melato) and Gennarino, (Giancarlo Giannini, who interestingly is the father of Adriano who plays Giuseppi in Ritchie's version)), were very political and held some interesting debates and arguments, some of which are relevant to today.  For example, Gennarino, a staunch communist, gives a passionate speech about how the rich people deliberately burn crops or dump food to keep prices high and to starve poor people.  Raffaella, a true believer of capitalism strongly argues against this and what follows is a fascinating discussion between 2 diametrically opposite opinions.

These political views from the 2 lead characters are important because of the role reversal which takes place on the deserted island.  Raffaella's capitalist views represents modern society, with free markets, money, the rich having the power and wielding it.  Gennarino's Communist leanings represents a more traditional way of a learning skills and using this to help each other.  He also has a clear view in the role of men and women which is more 'old fashioned'.  This view has no place on the cruise but once they are stranded on the island, Raffaella's money and ways of life are meaningless and Gennarino's beliefs become more relevant.

Ritchie's versions of these characters, Amber and Giuseppi, only really hint at their political beliefs.  For example, Raffaella's views seem to be borne out of this is all she knew, having been raised in a rich, well off family and Melato plays this with a sort of innocence and naivity.  This makes Raffaella, whilst certainly not a pleasant person, a character you can understand.  Madonna's portryal is just of a rude arrogant bitch who is fully aware that there are other ways but thinks 'fuck them'.  This comes across as Ritchie has not really given Amber any political beliefs, just lazy opinions based on nothing, (like the Tories) and the same is true for Giuseppi who just comes across as a stroppy trade unionist who keeps lobbying for walk outs but doesn't really know what he is angry about, (Labour).

Therefore, when they have the sudden role reversal between Amber and Giuseppi, it does not play out as an intresting dynamic, but as Giuseppi turning into a cruel bastard intent on revenge.  When Giuseppi starts to slap Amber, it is anger and rage on Amber because she's Amber.  This is how it comes across and is not a good thing and does absolutely nothing for Giuseppi's character.  When Gennarino started to slap Raffaella, it was frustration over his perception of being downtrodden by the rich classes off which Amber represented.  This off course does not excuse his actions and the scene in which he slaps Raffaella and finally loses his temper is hard to watch, but is relevant to the storyline and explained in context.

Another problem is when Giuseppi slaps Amber, you think it's not hard enough and you wished he had done it a lot sooner.  Why?  Well so far I have ignored the elephant in the room, but I feel we must turn to her now because if Ritchie delivered a poor script he also supplied a poor actress.  By far and away the biggest problem with this movie has to be Madonna.

When it comes to acting skills Madonna really does stop at nothing.  She can not do it and I do not know why she insists on continuing to do it.  Dick Tracy, Who's That Girl, Desperatley Seeking Susan, the list goes on and on of movies in which she is just so terribly bad that you wonder why on earth directors keep offering her roles.  The only decent film I have seen her in is In Bed With Madonna which came out when I was 15 and which I must admit I had to watch in 5 minute bursts and through half closed eyes, (I love the fact that when this movie was shown on ITV for the first time, the sponsers were 'Kleenex'.  It's true!).

When Ritchie was thinking about making the movie, I feel that he accidentally mentioned it to Madonna, maybe in passing and she immediately jumped in and said 'I can do that'.  For the next 6 months he must have been saying things like, 'look, if you want to go on tour it's OK, we can get someone else in for the part' or 'you wouldn't let anyone down if you are not feeling up for doing this movie'.  Eventually there was no choice and he had to tell Kate Winslet the bad news.

From the beginning Madonna delivers lines like she's reading the back of a cerial box in a supermarket.  There is no emotion, which suggests that Madonna's main problem is that she is herself during filming.  Off course, because of this you would think she was good at acting like an arrogant, spoilt bitch who thinks far more highly of herself than the rest of us, but I am afraid you would be wrong.  When you can't even act out your normal persona, you know it is probably time to look for a different career.  Maybe Madonna should try roof felting or something.

When Giuseppi bumps into a drunken Amber, he drops an enormous fish which he had just caught.  Lifeless, cold and fishy, Madonna is best known for hits such as 'Like a Virgin'.

I won't go much further into Madonna's poor attempt at acting in this movie as I think Wes covered it rather well in his blog and with enough bile for both of us.  But she does remind me of an old UK gameshow called 'The Generation Game'.  At the end of some episodes, contestants, (members of the public), would 'act' out a play at the end and the words were written on cue cards and hidden around the set.  The contestant would have to read from these cue cards and often they were spelt in such a way that the contestant would say something funny or the contestant was so poor at reading them, that they would trip themselves up and make themselves look stupid.  Each and every one of them was a better actor than Madonna.

I will admit though, the location was stunning and I did like the old boat that featured in the movie.  Weathered, wooden and having seen better days, Madonna hopes to tour again next year.

Overall, Ritchie did not bring anything new to this remake and in fact managed to make a watered down version which lacked the bite and interest of the original.  The 1974 movie is nearly 2 hours long with Ritchie's version being only 89 minutes.  For some reason, Ritchie's version feels longer.  Maybe if he gets the chance again he could set aside his differences, re-hire Madonna and try to put things right.  On the deserted island, whilst Madonna is out buying a baby, Ritchie and the crew should sneak off the island, taking all boats and means of escape and leave her there.  He should then make a demand that she will only be rescued if she never tries to make a movie again.  He may have to wait some time......

#85 Swept Away (Wes)

So far on the list this movie is the one I’ve been dreading watching the most. Before I looked up what I had to watch next, I had no idea what this movie even was. As soon as I saw that it was a Guy Ritchie directed romance movie starring Madonna, the memories of this being released and me cringing at the very idea came flooding back. So now I had to watch this, and I was left cursing my drunken self for making such a stupid pact with Colin in the first place.

Amber Leighton (Madonna), is a rich, arrogant socialite, who is never pleased with anything, including her pharmaceutical kingpin husband Tony (Bruce Greenwood). Tony takes her on a no frills private cruise with two other couples, where she takes out her anger on the ships first mate, Guiseppe Esposito (Adriano Giannini). When Amber makes Guiseppe take her out on a boat to join the other couples on a day trip to an island (or something like that - maybe it was diving, who cares?) the engine breaks and they get stranded. Eventually they land on a deserted island where Amber’s money and power mean nothing and Guiseppe’s skills are much more important. Guiseppe bullies and humiliates Amber until they eventually fall in love. I’m not sure what happened next as my screen was covered in angry vomit.

There are a few questions in the world that I’m sure I’ll never know the answer to: What killed off the dinosaurs? Who was Jack the Ripper? Who put the bomp in de-bomp-de-bomp-de-bomp? And finally: Why do people keep hiring Madonna to “act” in movies?

When I say act, what I really mean is walk around saying her lines and performing actions in a way that makes a pre-school nursery nativity play look like it was being performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. Haven’t these people witnessed her previous “acting” skills in movies such as Who’s That Girl or Dick Tracy?

To say that she was hired because she was at the time married to the director, would probably be a fair assumption. When asked why Madonna was cast Guy Ritchie reportedly said "Because she was cheap and available." I’m just not convinced that they couldn’t have just found somebody even cheaper, by throwing a rock in Hollywood and choosing whichever out of work actress it hit. But then again, they may not have been able to find someone who could get time off from their waiting job…

I think you’ve got to look at it like this. If you’re watching a Guy Ritchie movie and you’re missing the acting talents of Vinnie Jones, then something has gone seriously wrong.

To make it worse, she also has a musical number in this movie. Actually that's a lie, she mimes to a song. I wasn't aware that Madonna had lost all the musical talent that she'd had in the eighties so badly that she couldn't perform her own song in this. To make things worse, her miming abilities are worse than Milli Vanilli's. All I can say is that the song in this is as embarrassing to watch as the Mae West song in Myra Breckinridge, don't believe me? Check it out for yourself... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mu08qFblGM

Is there anything more excruciating than trying to watch Madonna act for an hour and a half? It turns out there is, watching Guy Ritchie try to direct anything other than a gangster movie for an hour and a half. 

A lot of people seemed to dislike Ritchie’s direction style in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, calling it style over content, but I really liked it. The rapid scene cuts, the quick-fire conversations and the fact that he makes everything look cool and gritty at the same time all worked really well, whilst breathing a bit of life into what can be a tired genre. Unfortunately whilst he does this at the beginning of the movie, and briefly you think that he may be trying to bring a new angle to the romance genre, you soon get motion sickness and the nagging feeling that Ritchie is really out of his depth.

For some reason the film also has a constant soundtrack of the sort of music you’d expect to hear in a cockroach infested kebab house. The sort of music that may happily accompany a crazy ouzo fuelled night out, but will instantly bring back embarrassing memories when heard sober.

The love story between Amber and Guiseppe is based around him being a misogynistic caveman, mentally and physically abusing her until she becomes submissive towards him. He slaps her, makes her call him master, deines her food and water until she washes his clothes. It’s like a bad two person version of Lord of the Flies, but with kissing instead of murder.

Eventually she learns to catch an octopus on her own, proving that she is still a strong willed woman, but this can’t redeem what is a badly made exploration of human nature. This could have been an interesting exploration on primal instincts and the changing of societal roles in harsh circumstances, but it just comes across as a mans petty revenge against a spoilt, rich lady who wanted fresh coffee and the comforts that she was accustomed to.

This film is actually a remake of an Italian romantic comedy from 1974, which has quite positive reviews on IMDB. As has been proved many times, Hollywood remakes of foreign language films often lose what made the original so good in the first place. Whether this is a loss of an expertly crafted atmosphere (The Ring), a significant change in the plot (The Vanishing) or just sometimes it’s just plain bad (Godzilla). I can’t comment on what’s been lost in this remake, but I’m not entirely sure what the point of remaking it in the first place was.

This is the least romantic movie since Deliverance. It stinks worse than the fish guts they left rotting in the sun on the beach and is best left avoided unless you’re feeling really masochistic.

#86 The Avengers (Wes)

The Avengers

For the third time now we come to a movie that I’ve actively avoided since it’s release. There are two reasons for this. Firstly when it was released, the studios didn’t show it to the press, so there were no reviews, which is always a sign that the studio know they have a stinker on their hands. Secondly, I never really liked the TV show that this was based on, so it’s never had much appeal for me. I was right to avoid Speed 2, but missed out on something fun in avoiding Street Fighter, so was I wrong to give this film a miss?

Based on the British TV show from the 60s (definitely not to be confused with the Marvel Comics superhero team), The Avengers follows secret agents John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) as they fight to defeat Sir August De Wynter (Sean Connery) from unleashing his weather machine on Britain. There’s some nonsense about a cloned Emma Peel and some double crossing agents, in there as well, but I think that one sentence sums up everything you need to know about the plot.

Movies based on TV shows are generally either pretty good, or horrifyingly bad. I thought Starsky and Hutch, The Addams Family and The Brady Bunch were great fun. However I also thought that The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse, The Flintstones and Star Trek: The Motion Picture were bloody awful (to be fair though, the Star Trek films mostly improved vastly after the first one). Mainly though, I’ve just avoided seeing most adaptations, as I just can’t bear to see how badly Hollywood has mangled the next show it set it’s eyes on: The A-Team, Yogi Bear, The Smurfs, The Saint… The list for those ones just goes on and on.

The Avengers goes beyond horrifyingly bad though. It sets itself a whole new level of cringeworthy as it tries to be as British as possible, but instead makes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins look as British as a Devonshire cream tea. The most British this film gets, is right at the beginning when John Steed is walking through a village and he gets attacked by everyone he sees (A policeman, a milkman, some mechanics, an old lady with a pram). Swap a country village for an Essex coastal town and you’re pretty much there.

Unfortunately, whilst the original TV show did have a very British sense of humour, laden with British eccentricity and dry wit, this movies attempts at it are about as convincing as Keanu Reeves English accent in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The eccentricity in this movie seems to stretch as far as Steed having a gadget in his Bentley that dispenses tea. That’s right, he basically has a Teasmade in his car. How very wacky. As for the dry wit, well let’s just say that hardly needed to sew my arse back on after laughing it off.

Like the TV show, this movie does try to be absurd, but once again it just hits the wrong level. The most bizarre scene involves Sir Wynter hosting a meeting of criminals where everyone is dressed in giant teddy bear suits. (It has to be seen to be believed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW0j13EvTg). It’s like if The Untouchables was based in Build-a-Bear. Whilst this scene is a mixture of awkward and baffling, it does lead to a scene with Uma Thurman fighting a giant teddy bear who turns out to be a clone of herself, what other film can boast that?

There are actually a few really good scenes in this film. The old lady spy, Alice (Eileen Atkins), shooting Shaun Ryder and scaring off Eddie Izzard made me laugh and I particularly liked the part where a drugged Emma Peel gets caught in an M.C. Escher nightmare maze, complete with never ending staircase. Unfortunately by this part of the movie, I felt I was trapped in a similar maze and that this film would never end.

The most inexplicable thing about this film is how it attracted such a brilliant cast, most of whom put in some of the worst performances I’ve ever seen them give. Surely it's standard practice to read the script before you agree to make a movie? Ralph Fiennes, brilliant years before in Schindlers List, just appears foppish and a little embarrassed. Uma Thurman seems to be concentrating so much on maintaining her pretty poor English accent that she forgot to act, and for some reason Sean Connery seems to be doing the same Spanish accent that he did in Highlander 2...

You could blame some of the terrible performances on the terrible script, but not everybody comes out looking bad. Jim Broadbent as Mother puts in a typically good performance and Patrick Macnee’s cameo (voice only) as Invisible Jones is entertaining. In fact most of the supporting cast are actually ok, I think it was probably just poor casting in the case of the lead roles.

Ultimately the worst thing about this movie is that it’s boring. An action adventure movie, that’s clearly supposed to appeal to a family audience, should be exciting. It doesn’t all have to be all action, but it has to be engaging. I think the best thing the filmmakers could do with this movie is market it as a miracle cure for insomnia, they could perhaps then make up some of the money this movie lost at the box office.

Director, Jeremiah Chechik was forced to cut 26 minutes from the movie after a negative test screening. A directors cut may make the plot make more sense and fill in some of the gaping plot holes, but I think that would more likely just be prolonging the torture of any poor soul who thought this film would be a worthwhile time to spend an evening watching.

The Avengers is a lot like walking in on your parents having sex. It’s horribly embarrassing for everybody involved, and you just want to forget everything you’ve just witnessed. Do yourselves a favour and stick to the other movie called The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble in the UK) you won’t regret it.

#86 The Avengers (1998) (Colin)

The Avengers was a British TV show in the 60's and 70's and starred Patrick Macnee as secret agent John Steed. It Started life as a straight faced espionage drama with Steed as an assistant to Dr. David Keel, (played by Ian Hendry). During the course of its run, it evolved into a camp, fun, quintessentially English show centred on Steed and his constant mission to protect our beloved green and pleasant land.

The bosses and villains became more outlandish and extravagant as did the storyline and settings, leading the show to become a 'spy-fi'. From battling robots to invisible men, from being shrunken to pursued by ferocious anatomically altered house cats, (really!), The Avengers was both futuristic and off the time. It was believable in that it seems plausible, but reality was stretched, pushed and at times it was all just a bit 'out there'. Similar, perhaps, to James Bonds gadgets or the moon setting for Moonraker. This made the show unique, quirky and entertaining and it soon gained a strong following both in the UK and the US, (which was no mean feat for a low budget 'limey' show). 

One constant throughout this evolution was that Steed was accompanied by a female assistant. There was singer and novice agent, Venus Smith, (Julie Stevens),  leather clad, judo throwing anthropologist Dr. Cathy Gale, (Honor Blackman) and fully qualified agent Tara King, (Linda Thorson). However, the most popular assistant and the one who is probably best remembered is Mrs Emma Peel, played by Diana Rigg. 

Mrs Peel was sexy, intelligent, cool and boy, could she kick ass! The girls wanted to be her and the boys wanted to, well, put posters of her on their bedroom walls. Her partnership with Macnee worked beautifully due to the juxtaposition of the classic pre-war English gent with suit, bowler hat and umbrella against Peel's modern fashion, sex appeal and 60's liberation. It was the old established way meeting with the swinging 60's. Very apt at the time as ideas and values were changing at a fast pace and was probably watched by the old guard with curiosity and a bit of fear. Steed and Peel showed that both could co-exist, work well together and have a jolly nice cup of tea at the end of it. Super!

Although I could not proclaim to be an avid fan, I liked The Avengers. Whether it was the daft stories, the sending up of the stuffy old English ways or leather cat suits I don't know, but I liked it. That's why when I heard a US chappie had made a film based on the original TV series, my heart sank, particularly because films made based on old TV shows generally don't work. 

The 'A' Team, Scooby Doo, The Flintstones, Dukes of Hazzard and one of the worst films ever and somehow missing from our list, Lost in Space. They completely failed to recapture what made the original shows fun to watch.  The problem is invariably they are compared to the show on which they are based on and because of this they nearly always they miss the mark. The scripts are shallow and weak, the casting poor and all in all it just seems like a studio trying to cash in on a franchise that they have acquired. The Avengers, I'm afraid, is no exception to this rule.

The Avengers sees Ralph Fiennes, take over from Patrick Macnee as John Steed, Uma Thurman is Emma Peel and Sean Connery plays the baddie of the movie, Sir August De Wynter.  Now on paper you would think, 'Hang on, pretty solid cast, we're in safe hands here'...... and you would be wrong.

The plot revolves around Sir August De Wynter who has developed a machine which controls the weather.  De Wynter plans to hold the world to ransom with his device and unless the countries of the world pay him vast sums of money, he will unleash all manner of apocalyptic weather on the offending countries. Thus it is up to Steed and Peel to stop De Wynter. Which they do.

I would try to pad this plot out for you, but this is really all in essence there is to it and it's jolly boring along the way. This is partly due to a script so thin you fold it, put a comb in it and come up with a musical instrument more exciting than any point of the movie. It's not helped though, by some very poor casting.

Fiennes' Steed should be applauded as he has managed to create a character the complete opposite of the original. Macnee's version in the 60's was classy, warm, funny and the epitome of the English gent. Fiennes' version is smug, arrogant, condescending and carries an air of self righteousness. Think George Osbourne, but much, much more of an arse. Fiennes has completely misread the character which needed to be almost a caricature of Englishness but with affection. Fiennes strolls around acting like some Etonian out to lash some oik for serving luke warm tea.

Coupled with him is Thurman's Mrs. Peel, who looks the part but has one massive problem..... her accent. You see in a film which is trying to be English and in which it's lead characters are supposed to have well spoken English accents, you would have been forgiven for thinking they would have casted an English actor. But no, they turned to Thurman who really struggles to keep the accent up and is about as convincing an English lady as a former bond actor playing a Russian submarine captain. I mean an American trying to play the all English Mrs. Peel, what next, an American Robin Hood!

Thurman oozes about as much sex appeal as a pummel stone and is just as cold. Rigg's Peel enjoyed flirtatious wit and a duel of minds with Steed, Thurman's version involves a subtle sledgehammer with a neon sign buzzing 'when we gonna fuck then?'. I would discuss the chemistry between Peel and Steed but there is none. For characters who should have a mutual, but not necessarily sexual, attraction between them, they seem aloof and distant from each other and never really warm to themselves or indeed us.

Finally Sean Connery's De Wynter is a one-dimensional bad guy, who we've seen played a thousand times before and with more convincing wigs. With one eye clearly on the pay cheque he puts no effort into the character and just waves his cane around, wears kilts and speaks in a Scottish accent quite loudly. It is like he has just driven to set, walked on, read some cue cards and sent the invoice to Warner Bros. By the end of the movie I really could not care less if he lives or dies. He dies.

Off course the actors are only one part of this disaster, the director, Jeremiah S. Chechik, must take an almighty share of the blame. His vision of what is 'Englishness' is so wide of the mark, he's actually hit the North Sea. Having the word 'tea' every other word does not make the movie feel English. It makes it feel like you have done a good joke about the English being obsessed by tea and then you have just repeatedly hit that joke in my face again and again. Don't get me wrong, The original Avengers would have done a similar gag, but suitably and as a polite little send up of our quaint ways. The constant blumming tea reference just makes it feel like Chechik doesn't really know about Englishness and is hanging onto the one thing he thinks he does know.

For example, Steed first meets Mrs. Peel in a sauna. He is buck naked and reading the Financial Times. No, not quite there, he should have been in his suit and Bowler hat in the sauna reading the Financial Times and smoking a pipe. We English are a decent sort and do not do that nudity kind of thing.

Maybe he was just being faithful to the original Avengers by gently sending up the English way. He obviously is a familiar with the Avengers as at times it does look the part. The 'spy-fi' element is there, with mechanical bees chasing Steed and Peel in one scene. They are pursued by Shaun Ryder and Eddie Izzard, presumably in a bold attempt to stop this mockery. Incidentally Ryder says nothing the whole movie and Izzard says only two words, 'Oh Fuck!'. Ironically it is the only dialogue I agree with.

Also off course the weather machine being another element of science fiction, although we did watch this during the coldest Easter on record in the UK which meant De Wynter's threats sounded a bit hollow to us.

There is one scene, which I will admit I did like. De Wynter assembles his 'weather team' and to protect their identities from each other, they are all dressed as life sized Teddy Bears! I actually laughed at this and visually I thought it looked great. It would not have felt out of place in the original and lends weight to my theory the Chechik does get some aspect of The Avengers.

A subtle example of this is outdoor scenes, which in the original show, usually only consisted of Steed and his assistant and no passers-by or extras. If you watch carefully you will see that Chechik has replicated this, and outside there are no extras. London looks deserted, as it did back in the 60's version. Unfortunately, if Chechik had looked at his audience, he would have noticed that the cinema was deserted as well.

The Avengers is just another bad movie version of a popular TV show. If I was to give Chechik the benefit of the doubt, I would say that he was trying to do a tribute to The Avengers. However, I think he should have sent it up more. Starsky and Hutch sort of worked as it was more of a piss take of the original rather than trying to be a new episode. The Avengers did not take itself seriously so why should the movie version?

If you want to watch The Avengers, then buy the DVD of the original 60's series. The 70's mini revival, The New Avengers and also on DVD, is not bad either. However, if you want a modern film version of The Avengers, then make sure it has the word 'Marvel' in front of it.

#87 Street Fighter (Wes)

#87 Street Fighter

As I’ve said before, movies based on videogames are invariably awful. I can only think of a couple that are actually any good (Silent Hill and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time), and even those can hardly be said to be classics. So you can imagine my trepidation at approaching Street Fighter. A film that isn’t only based on a videogame, but also stars Jean Claude Van Damme, and was the second film on our list that I’ve actively avoided since its release.

Drug lord General M. Bison (Raul Julia) has captured several dozen humanitarian workers in the country of Shadaloo. He demands that Colonel William F. Guile (Jean Claude Van Damme), head of the Allied Nations military force, secures a $20 billion ransom, otherwise he’ll execute them. Guile and his team (including Kylie Minogue as Cammy), must infiltrate Bison’s stronghold and try to rescue the hostages. They are aided in this by con artists Ryu (Byron Mann) and Ken (Damian Chapa), news reporter Chun-Li (Ming-Na Wen), sumo wrestler E. Honda (Peter Tuiasosopo) and boxer Balrog (Grand L. Bush), who all hold their own personal grudges against Bison or his friend, crime boss, Viktor Sagat (Wes Studi).

At this point I’m pretty sure you are thinking exactly what I was whilst watching the movie… This film ACTUALLY HAS A PLOT! Ok, it’s as bad as the Shadaloo Tong tattoos (which look like they've been drawn on with a Sharpie), but it does actually exist. Since it’s the case that even games with brilliant stories get made into awful, plot free movies (most notably Resident Evil), I was shocked that a game that is 30 seconds of beating someone up actually manages to have a coherent story. Luckily this movie was made before Paul WS Anderson began making videogame adaptions, or we probably would have had to watch 204 short fights.

As for the fights in this movie, they are actually entertaining. There were only two things about them that disappointed me. Firstly nobody has the special powers that they have in the games (although M Bison does have a suit that allows him to levitate and shoot electricity from his fingers) and secondly Jean Claude Van Damme doesn’t do the splits! I didn’t think such a thing was possible. He seems to love doing them so much that I thought he would have even sneaked one in even if it wasn’t scripted.

Jean Claude Van Damme never was the greatest actor, so it’s no surprise that he isn’t particularly good in this movie. The same goes for Kylie Minogue, and pretty much everyone else in this movie other than Raul Julia. However, the funniest of the bad acting without a doubt goes to Andrew Bryniarski as Zangief. His facial expressions when he’s standing behind M Bison are hilarious. I’m not sure what he was trying to achieve, but he looks like he has the worst case of trapped wind ever. His eyes bulge and his cheeks puff out like he’s trying desperately to squeeze out a Boston cheer.

Unfortunately this was Raul Julia’s last feature film (his last actual role being in a TV movie – Down Came a Blackbird), before he died of a stroke. He was ill during the filming and reportedly made this movie for his children (who were fans of the game). I’m very thankful that he was in this movie, as he is absolutely brilliant as M. Bison. He is so over the top that you can’t help but love him in this. He actually equals Alan Rickman as The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as being one of the most entertainingly insane bad guys ever.

Of course the fact that he was a tall man helps him look like quite imposing, even if he has to wear the most ridiculous red military uniform (complete with cape). He uses his height to great effect, looming over Chun Li at one point, you believe that he could be a credible threat. Of course being taller than people wouldn't make him a great villian, so he has to prove how brilliantly nutty he is in other ways. He starts off by snapping peoples necks, and then steadily moves to experimenting on hostages to create a genetic soldier (Blanka, played by Robert Mammone) and shooting mines at Allied Nations boats using an arcade game style console, complete with a joystick and six buttons (just like the original Street Fighter arcade cabinet).

Blanka is made in some strange Clockwork Orange type experiment by Dr Dhalsam (Roshan Seth). Pumping him full of  bright green DNA mutagen, and showing him violent images of war and torture, pretty much like drinking limeade and looking at Facebook on a Saturday night when everyone is drunk. However Dhalsam shows him some pictures of babies and fluffy kittens, to stop him being completely evil (ok, actually it’s pictures of Martin Luther King Jr and some weddings, but you just don't see as many of them on Facebook).

Written and directed by Steven E de Souza, who also wrote Die Hard and 48 Hrs, you’d think that it at least would have a decent script. Unfortunately he also wrote The Flintstones, Judge Dredd and Beverly Hills Cop 3.

The script is so bad that it’s laughably good. Raul Julia has some hilarious lines, my favourite being “For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday”, which is closely followed by "Why do they still call me a warlord? And mad? All I want to do is to create the perfect genetic soldier. Not for power, not for evil, but for good".

There is no doubt that this movie is terrible, but it’s also fun. I don’t think it deserves its place on the list as I've seen much worse than this, but I’m glad it was as I would have never seen it otherwise. It seems that sometimes you can't just assume a movie will be unwatchable on the sole fact that it stars Jean Claude Van Damme. It’s camp, it’s colourful and it’s definitely worth a watch, if only for Raul Julia’s incredible performance.

#87 Street Fighter (1994) (Colin)

Until recently, I was never a fan of the Street Fighter games. I had a couple of problems with the game. Firstly a new 'version' came out every few weeks. Street Fighter Alpha, Street Fighter Championship Edition, Street Fighter Hyper etc were all the same blooming game. The only difference might be a couple of new characters or special moves. Each version of the game was essentially the same and in my opinion, this was just an out and out con by Capcom to make a quick buck.

Also I don't think the game itself was very good. It had an incredibly steep learning curve. If you couldn't memorise the button sequence for your special move, then you were mincemeat by the 4th stage. Which led to another problem, instead of learning the sequence which was laborious, you actually just ended up mashing ALL the buttons in the vain attempt that you could perform the move. I could not be bothered to learn these stupid moves, so my game of Street Fighter would sound something like this:

'Round 1. Fight! Har new kin, har new kin, right upper cut, har new kin. You Lose!'

(I was recently given Street Fighter for the Xbox 360 and I have grown to love it, although probably more in a retro way that a strict convert to the genre.)

Back to my original point and the fact is, whether or not I actually like a video game, I've nearly always hated movies based on video games. From the awful Super Mario Bros. (1993), to the ok but disappointing Resident Evil (2002),movie studios seem unable to recapture the atmosphere, excitement and enjoyment from the original games.

By far the worse is Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (2001), which was a CGI film supposedly based on the Final Fantasy series, but looked nothing like any of the games. It was dull, tedious, slow and within a year looked dated. A miraculous feat considering the 1997 FF7 game for the PS1 looks fresh, spectacular and remains as entertaining and gripping as back then!

So as I didn't really like the game and movies based on games are usually disappointing, I avoided this movie for nearly 20 years. However, it made it onto the list, so, I had no choice. Therefore I dusted off my 6 button D-Pad, inserted my cartridge and began.....

The Street Fighter games, for me, never really had a plot, but I'm shocked to find they actually did! As far as I was aware it was just an elimination game until you faced your final 'boss' opponent, defeat him and win. Regardless, Street Fighter the film has a plot which is not based on any from the games and elaborates, expands and adds depth to the characters. I'm using the word depth here, in it's broadest possible term.

All round bad egg, M. Bison, (Raul Julia), kidnaps and holds hostage humanatarian workers near the fictitious town of Shadaloo, (push pineapple shake the tree), in Eastern Asia. He demands a ransom of $20 billion, all the time avoiding the temptation of holding his little finger to his mouth. The Alliance Nations, a multinational military group led by Guile, (Jean-Claude Van Damme), attempt to locate and free the hostages. Guile enlists the help of two con men, Ryu (Byron Mann, (no relation)) and Ken (Damian Chapa), to track down Bison's hideout.

The movie then focuses on Ryu and Ken's attempt to locate Bison. Along the way we meet all the characters from the Street Fighter games in a series of interlinked plots and sub plots.

For example, news reporter Chun Li (Ming-Na Wen), seeks Bison for revenge over the death of her father. She is accompanied by E. Honda (Peter Navy Tuiasosppo), a sumo wrestler and Balrog (Grand L. Bush (FNARR FNARR)) a boxer who both seek revenge against a chap called Sagat (Wes Studi), who ruined their reputation and so on.

It all ends with a big boss battle fight between Bison and Guile, in what is probably the only part of the movie which actually feels like the game. Guile eventually triumphs, the hostages are freed and the $20 billion is safe and well. Hurrah!

This film is incredibly camp, cheesy, the dialogue is threadbare, the plot thinning so much it has a comb over and everyone really hams up their roles. I bloody loved it!

Yes, for the second time in three movies, I completely disagree with the critics. In my blog for Ecks vs Sever, I mentioned how I believed the critics were being almost snobbish with the film as it was not a subtitled thought provoking cinematic masterpiece. Ecks vs Sever was entertainment, that's all. Street Fighter is similar, it doesn't take itself too seriously, so why should we? I think the reasons for the critical bashing are similar to Ecks vs Sever, but unfortunately for Street Fighter, it comes from two sides.

The gamers criticised the movie because it was not like the game. Well, thank fuck for that as I personally did not want to see an hour and a half of 3 rounds x 75 second fights in which all characters essentially have the same moves. I can understand gamers criticising a movie such as Resident Evil, whose storyline and feel are already very strong within the game, but I'm sorry, a movie about a 2D fighting game has to elaborate and branch out or it'll be dull and repetitive.

Some criticism I can understand. Guile, the all American hero, who has in both game and film a large American flag tatoo on his upper arm, speaks with a broad Belgian accent! Unfortunately it appears Van Damme has gone to the Sean Connery school of accents.

Also the complete absence of any of the character's special moves from the game is a bit disappointing and could have made for more colourful and entertaining fight scenes, but I suppose it made it more plausible as they are not super humans. Bison does have his special ability of lighting bolts and levitation and this is explained away as it's his suit that has these powers rather than him. This does make the end battle more interesting as Guile has to battle with this 'super boss' without any powers himself.

The film critic's derision of the movie is no surprise as it's clumsy and not very deep, but sometimes I think critics have had a humour by-pass. The main reason for their bile, i think, is because this film was based on a video game, a medium still looked down upon by critics as somewhat lesser than Hollywood, (I would dispute this). I think they were pre-programmed to hate it.

One point critics constantly make is that this was Julia's last film and how tragic it is that it was Street Fighter. Julia's performance is brilliant, he stays just on the right side of hamming it up, is entertaining, looks the part, (despite being ill during filming) and brings the character to life. Also, Julia took the part after being encouraged by his children, who were fans of the video game. He knew there was a possibility he would not survive the stomach cancer and so took the role for them. I have a lot of respect for that.

Van Damme's Guile, apart from his 'American' accent, is not bad. I'm a bit unclear as to whether he is just a really bad actor or he was told to ham it up on purpose. It really is borderline but against Kylie Minogue's Lieutenant Cammy, he is Sir Ian McKellen. I am so pleased she stopped pursuing an acting career, as she really is not good in this film or others. She cites Bio-Dome as her only bad film, I suggest it's her back catalogue.

The 2 young actors who play Ryu and Ken work well together. They bounce gags off each other and whilst they do borderline on being as annoying as Ridley and Snails from Dungeons and Dragons, they do come through as likeable and dare I say, 'cheeky chaps'. One scene in which they are trying to escape after being imprisioned did make me laugh as one says, 'give me a hand' and is met with the response, 'we've only been in jail for 5 minutes'. There's nothing quite like a wank gag to lighten the mood!

All in all, this is a fun movie. Sometimes unintentionally funny, but there is enough silliness, explosions and martial arts to keep you watching. It's not a masterpiece, but doesn't claim to be. I grew to like Street Fighter the game, I think if people just watched it whilst taking a huge pinch of salt, they may grow to like Street Fighter the film.