Monday, 30 January 2017

My Thoughts on Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

The superhero genre continued its dominance of the box office in 2016. The year saw the likes of Captain America: Civil War, Deadpool and Doctor Strange. But there was one film that I was really looking forward to; Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. And while the film became the talking point for many cinema-goers and comic book fans, I don’t think it was for the reasons Warner Bros. Pictures and DC were hoping for. I personally wasn’t too thrilled that they had chosen to skip a sincerely needed sequel to Man of Steel in favour of making their own version of The Avengers. Yet while I understand and share the common complaints and criticisms that many had, I still found a significant amount of enjoyment from watching it. 

My early skepticism about the film’s narrative and the studio’s eagerness to please its audience came to fruition in a film with an unnecessarily contrived and cluttered plot. With the sole precursor to Snyder’s “DC Universe” being an origin story for Superman, the task of establishing an entire franchise in 151 minutes and with little setup was a disaster waiting to happen. I’d argue that a considerable amount of the narrative issues could have been alleviated by a Man of Steel 2. The iconic question “Does the world really need Superman?”, the notion of him being the last Kryptonian, the “complex” character and motivations of Lex Luthor, and the existence of other superheroes could have been addressed in a story told immediately after the destruction of Metropolis and General Zod’s death. This would have suitably set the framework for a future confrontation with Batman and the eventual formation of the Justice League.

I particularly hated Jesse Eisenberg’s turn as Lex Luthor which was a completely dreadful and unnecessary attempt to reinvent the quintessential villain. And it hurts even more knowing that he is now a permanent part of this franchise. Elsewhere, the previously strong approach to Louis Lane’s character in Man of Steel was squandered by her reduction to the damsel in distress role yet again. Put simply, Batman Vs Superman suffers from a monumentally shoddy approach to its writing.

So what did I actually like about the film? First, I love the look of the film. I’ve stated numerous times that while Zack Snyder’s filmography is a hodgepodge of quality, his understanding of the visual side of film is pretty good. From Superman standing in front the US Capitol building to Bruce Wayne’s apocalyptic nightmare, Batman Vs Superman feels and looks very much like the pages of a comic book. Meanwhile the titular fight, though brief and enhanced with digital effects, manages to capture the weight of these two titans being thrown around. It’s simply a joy to watch. 

Second, Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/ Batman was undoubtably the best part of the entire film. I can even excuse Synder’s vision of the capped crusader as a cold-blooded murderer, unlike many. This version of Bruce Wayne is weathered, spent and bleak, which is perfectly shown in his tense exchanges with Alfred. The entire warehouse scene in particular, vigorously displayed a new approach to the iconic character that was brutish and terrifying. I’m really looking forward to seeing more of Batfleck, especially with in the eventual standalone film. I also thought Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman offered a pretty stellar performance in her limited screen time.

In the end, Warner Bros. Pictures’ haste to achieve the same dominance as Marvel backfired and the studio is reeling from it. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy against the studio or DC, but I feel that in the wake of Marvel’s success, comparisons are inevitably going to be drawn between the two. And on that basis, Warner and DC are going to struggle to compete. Wonder Woman is on the horizon and so too is the Justice League, and if those fail to turn heads, then I’m afraid that we'll likely see a revamping of the franchise yet again in the near future. 

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Favourites of 2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

After re-watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens recently, I decided to go back and read my article  exclaiming it to be one of my favourite films of 2015. After reading it numerous times and disagreeing with around sixty percent of what I had written, I feel I was too hasty in giving such glowing praise to what was essentially a soft reboot with little originality. 2016 saw the release of the franchise’s first “stand alone” film, Rogue One. And as per usual, the hype and marketing was omnipresent. The trailers looked great, the cast was amazing and director Gareth Edwards was an interesting pick. However I was still sceptical about the Disney’s attempts to revisit old ground, especially with the direct connections to my beloved original trilogy. 

The story, which stems from a sentence in the opening crawl of A New Hope, isn’t one of complex narrative twists and turns: There’s a group of ragtag, good guys. Meanwhile the bad guys have made a destructive weapon that threatens the galaxy. So the good guys have to get the weapon’s secret plans. It’s a safe film that uses the chronological setting to tell an engaging story while introducing characters both old and new. The film fortunately refrains from leaving an abundance of open questions and chooses it’s lasting “franchise significance” in a sensible and intelligent manner. The film finishes, and so too does the tale being told. 

What particularly stands out are the visuals and cinematography. The costly CGI “resurrection” of Peter Cushing’s character Grand Moff Tarkin is astonishing and I personally felt that it was justified in the narrative. But I hope that this doesn’t become a future trend of the film industry. The concept of seeing lost stars such as Robin Williams and Alan Rickman in new projects isn’t one that feels humble or progressive. Elsewhere, one thing that really stuck me was the sense of scale. Gareth Edwards has been notable for his prowess at showcasing scope and perspective. His directorial debut Monsters and reboot of Godzilla managed to successfully convey the magnitude of the events depicted on screen. In Rogue One, the new variation of AT-AT Walkers, Imperial Star Destroyers and especially the Death Star are presented in a way that gives a visual resonance which matches their intimidating presence throughout the film. The Death Star isn’t simply a matte painting, but a looming and ever-present force of terror. From the guerrilla warfare on Jedha to the rebels storming the beaches of Scarif, its hard to deny that Rogue One feels forceful and visceral in its presentation, which is helped by some excellent sound design. 

While I wouldn’t join the masses and exclaim that its a “dark, violent and grim film”, I will emphasis it’s overly-serious approach. Though I quite enjoyed the change of tone, the lighthearted banter and the occasionally quips aren’t enough to give a sense of humanity to the story’s characters, which is a major problem with Rogue One. I’m in complete agreement with the many criticisms surrounding the lack of character development. I’ve mentioned countless times that building engaging and deep characters is an important part of any film, especially one reliant on their motivations to the narrative cause. In a film where the majority of the audience already knows the fate of most of these individuals, it didn’t really do much to encourage any lasting sympathy towards their predictable demise. 

In the end, Rogue One was thoroughly enjoyable. However I’d be lying if my delight didn’t stem from my nostalgia for the franchise, especially seeing the Death Star and Imperial Walkers from the original trilogy. But even with a straightforward story and merely serviceable characters, I think it was definitely one of the best cinema experiences of 2016.