The A-Team
Joe Carnahan | USA | 2010
117 min
You’re unlikely to be whistling the A-team theme tune on your way home after watching the film. Though used sporadically, it, and the film, just doesn’t leave their mark. Featuring an intense, highly convoluted setup, this is an action movie created using excesses – its attempt to entertain are based on the philosophy of sensory overkill and it leaves you longing for more simpler films.
The A-Team is so needlessly complex that it requires not one, not two, but three villainous figures. One of these masquerades in the usual good guy mode till he is required to abandon all of his previous character traits and turn shady. This years earlier release, The Losers, had a similar and quite possibly, equally absurd setup, but remained enjoyable without being laborious to watch probably because it had the good sense to know how to balance humour and action while still being hip (concepts it borrowed from Soderbergh’s Ocean’s franchise).
There is nothing hip about A-team, despite showcasing a shirtless Bradley Cooper as Face, Liam Neeson as cigar chomping leader Hannibal, an amusing turn by Sharlto Copley as the maniacal Murdoch and even a more thoughtful B.A. Baracus (boxer Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson, filling in the iconic shoes of Mr. T). That would explain the overlong, arduous credits sequence, lasting a good 20 minutes, introducing characters that don’t need such pointless introductions, in a silly overlong escape scene from Mexico. The scripts zigzagging aimlessness would also explain Hannibal’s catchphrase throughout the film, as if uttered to reassure the audience, that no matter how random things appear, there is always a plan. Nearly all of The A-Team is random, and no, there is no plan here.
Director Joe Carnahan repeats the formula from his equally tiresome Smokin’ Aces; a multitude of characters, loud, ear shattering action that forces actors to shout when talking, no semblance of plot direction. All of this is even before reaching the dull, over the top, CGI heavy conclusion. If objectively compared, the only thing that The Losers didn’t have that this film does is marketing buzz, also known as winning the popularity race by leeching studio advertising budget. Don’t let that fool you. The A-team has a more recognizable cast, big names producing it (the Scott brothers, which would explain its overall incoherence and embracement of the industrial junk look) but in a fair world, it would be second fiddle compared to that film. The A-Team is a misleading title for the film – Losers would have been more apt.
