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. 

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. 

Spectre Review

Alongside Star Wars, James Bond was another major part of my childhood. While I grew up during Pierce Brosnan’s skint as Bond, Timothy Dalton has remained my favourite version of the iconic, British spy. Licence to Kill and The Living Daylights are the films that I still have fond memories of. Whether it’s The Pretender’s Where Has Everybody Gone? playing over Necros’ handiwork or a young Benecio Del Toro’s falling into machinery, these were films I watched constantly on TV. In regards to Daniel Craig’s turn as 007; it’s been a rather uneven road. Casino Royale is easily one of the best instalments in the entire franchise while Quantum of Solace is easily one of the worst. Meanwhile I personally felt that Skyfall, while critically and financially successful, was a rather average Bond film that certainly looked the part but failed to truly deliver. Yet even after a few rough patches and Spectre’s poorly conceived marketing months before its release, I was still relatively excited to see what returning director Sam Mendes would do. 

However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there’s a lack of originality within the franchise, and action-cinema in general. It seems that in the wake and success of the Bourne Series, Bond has unsurprisingly been quick to dispense with the light-hearted nature and far-fetched narratives for a more grounded-in-current-affairs approach. And while I agree that this was the direction it needed to take, I feel that in doing so the series is losing its unique charm and character. The last two films attempted to reinvigorate a stagnant formula with a more personal story involving the loss of Vesper Lynd and Judi Dench’s Judi Dench with varied success. Bond has become gritty, dark and emotionless, forgetting the quintessential charm that made the franchise and character so iconic and beloved. 

Spectre has all the components of a engaging Bond film, but squanders its composition with poor writing and poor pacing. Hacking, double agents, secret organisations and government corruption sound good on paper, but the film fails to construct a coherent and engaging narrative from them. Extravagant locations, an Aston Martin with gadgets, and a serious henchman offer an sense of nostalgia towards the classic Bond films; On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and From Russia With Love. And while I respect the decision to return to a more traditional Bond, here it feels empty and too superficial. The inconsistent and questionable pacing of the film doesn’t alleviate these shortcomings, but further highlights them. The third act in particular is a scramble to simultaneously wrap up the film’s loose ends while intentionally dragging out the final confrontation, which should be impossible to do.

Daniel Craig has never struck me as “James Bond”. Cold, emotionless and increasingly monotonous, this is his forth outing and while 9 years have passed since Casino Royale, he still hasn’t distinguished this version of Bond. He’s a capable actor, but I feel that whether it’s down to the writing or Craig’s frustrated attitude towards the role, he’s left Bond unlikable and tiresome. Meanwhile Christoph Waltz who usually lights up the screen with his quirky energy and jovial delivery is bitterly disappointing as quintessential Bond villain, Blofeld. Lea Seydoux gives a strong first impression, only to revert to the stereotypical damsel-in-distress that her character ironically deplores. The talent is there, but the writing doesn’t allow it to flourish. 

Spectre’s attempts to return to the traditional framework of the Bond series is more of a confused and lacklustre trip down memory lane than a true instalment in the franchise. It’s a shame that while director Sam Mendes, cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and production designer Dennis Gassner have created a visual striking film, everything else is left wilted and lifeless. From the writing to the mediocre performances, Spectre was a bitter disappointment and an unfortunate, missed opportunity. 

Favourites of 2015: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Some of my earliest cinema-going memories are of the re-releases of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Funnily enough I can’t actually remember seeing A New Hope until it’s VHS release. I collected the action figures, the posters, even the Darth Vader drink cups, which all still remain up in the storage attic. Lightsaber duels with my brother, and pretending my bicycle was an X-Wing, it’s fair to say that Star Wars was an important part of my childhood. But I also share the customary disappointment towards the prequel trilogy. As a result, the notion of another series of squandered potential in the hands of creator George Lucas was understandably disheartening. Yet the news of J. J. Abrams sitting in the director’s chair after the successful reboot of Star Trek put some of those fears to rest. 

The Force Awakens doesn’t stray too far from the tried and tested elements of its predecessors, yet manages to construct new foundations and offer enough intrigue to establish itself as the beginning of a new trilogy. Daisy Ridley and John Boyega’s entrance into the Star Wars Universe offers a new lease of life and perspective. A determined scavenger with a mysterious past, and a reformed Storm Trooper allows for a compelling set of characters with an engaging chemistry. Meanwhile Adam Driver’s menacing Kylo Ren, Domhnall Gleeson’s General Hux and Andy Serkis’ Supreme Leader Snoke leave a strong impression that gives glimpses into the true state of the “Dark Side”, even if it’s first oughting ends in a predictable loss. The return of the franchise’s classic characters; Han Solo, Leia Organa and Chewbacca carefully and respectfully pass the torch to the charismatic youth that hope to ascend to similar stature. 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a welcome and satisfying end to a rather disappointing year in cinema over here in Japan. From the iconic text crawl accompanied by John Williams’ score, to the sounds of Tie Fighter blaster cannons, J. J. Abrams has recreated some of the magic and spirit that has made the Star Wars Universe so endearing and iconic. And while questions still remain to be answered, I can’t argue that the film left me with a smile. 

Short Review: The Guest

The Guest was a film that I had shrugged off after watching it’s rather underwhelming trailer. To be brutally honest, I felt indifferent to a film taking a generic thriller story and drowning it in John Carpenter-esque style, merely jumping on the bandwagon of films like 2011’s excellent Drive. “If I wanted to see a 1980 styled cat and mouse thriller, I’d just watch a 1980s cat and mouse thriller.”  Yet after borrowing my brother’s copy of it, I was actually taken aback by how much I enjoyed it. 

A soldier returns to pays his respects to his friend’s mourning family. He’s extremely polite and handsome but there’s a dark side beneath all the smiles and good manners. Here lies a systematic psychopath whose sole intention is to terrorise a family with their own individual conflicts, and there’s nothing that can possible stop him. Dan Steven’s titular role is deviously charming, but utterly warped in his actions towards the family. Even when his real intensions are revealed, there’s a twisted desire to see him succeed and that’s credit to Steven’s performance. 

The Guest doesn’t necessarily do anything original, taking a very basic premise and running with it. In fact, the film plays more like a nostalgic trip down the gritty, uncompromising roads of the cult classics of the late 70s and 80s. Blood squibs, a synth soundtrack, long shots of endless roads and an unstoppable killing machine conjure thoughts of The Terminator and Halloween’s Michael Myers. The cinematography and production is well-thought out and coordinated, and the soundtrack is great.

The Guest is much like the 1980’s cult thriller The Hitcher staring Rutger Haeur. Both are engaging thrillers that centre on a fabulous performance from the film’s lead, and produce a constant, underlying level of tension and sheer energy. They’ve both got similar pacing problems and sinks into an outrageous third act, yet still offer an enjoyable time. Recommended. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

I collect the figures, read the comics and watch the films, but the “superhero” film genre is becoming increasingly saturated with the same thing over and over again. You just have to look at Marvel and DC’s release schedules for the next couple of years, and it’s clear that Hollywood and modern cinema in general, are being suffocated by these multi-million dollar franchises. After waiting an eternity for its release over here in Japan, Avengers: Age of Ultron was one of my most anticipated films of this year. Yet for all its bells and whistles, the film feels like a significant step back in Marvel’s recently stellar form. And it can all be simply attributed to one thing; crap writing. 

Tony Stark’s overzealous need to protect humanity from the unknown is rewarded with a sentient A.I. program named Ultron, who unfortunately plans to eradicate the human race. Tensions arise, the team’s chemistry is tested and destruction ensues as the Avengers come to the rescue..?. At the story’s heart, and even in the title, is the introduction of the villainous Ultron. Yet as a continuation of Marvel’s inability to create genuinely threatening antagonists, the physically imposing Ultron fails to really bring anything of stature or note. I can’t fault James Spader’s vocal performance, but this iconic character’s transformation to the screen is bitterly disappointing. The needless, smug remarks and Stark mannerisms belittle the initial menace and threat that’s effectively established with the character in the first act. It’s therefore frustrating that one of the quintessential figures of the Avengers lore is reduced to a tedious and vapid figure with an “evil plan” that’s ridiculous beyond belief. 

This labelled “Age” of Ultron similarly finds little justification through the course of the film. It’s ultimately a weekend of mild nuisance for the Avengers, where each member has minor obstacles they have to overcome as a team. The foundations are there for a film of impressive scale and dramatic weight, but it’s constricted by a lack of drive and ambition from the writing. These inconsistencies and problems ultimately infect the majority of the film. Natasha Romanoff and Bruce Banner’s forced romance falls flat on its face to an uncomfortable degree. Their relationship feels tacked on rather than of genuine affection, which in hindsight had seemingly appeared out of nowhere. It’s an amateurish technique of forcing emotional gravitas to the ensuing events and it shows. 

One issue that has been a constant problem with the Marvel films of late is the underlying desire to further develop its overall “Universe”. Age of Ultron spends a tiresome amount of screen time on setting up Captain America: Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok and Avengers: The Infinity Wars. Previously, hidden secrets, minor details and easter eggs offered fans glimpses and signs of the bigger composition of the Marvel totality. But with the vast nature and multiplicity of the franchise, it seems that casually inserting mini trailers/ teasers for upcoming films has become the norm. It’s genius marketing, but distracts from the film at hand. Yet even when the decision is made to include these elements, they’re either forgotten about or trivialised. Take Captain America: The Winter Soldier for example. The final moment of that film is the dismantling of S.H.I.E.L.D at the hands of Hydra. It’s a significant event that see’s Nick Fury disappear off the grid, S.H.I.E.L.D’s secrets being leaked to the public, and Captain America, Black Widow and Falcon going their separate ways. But in Age of Ultron a couple of lines of dialogue are deemed sufficient to resolve these major narrative ramifications. It’s an intriguing angle that could have been used to create uncertainty over the Avengers’ public perception, but alas it’s completely wasted. 

But for all my problems with Age of Ultron, it was still entertaining to watch. Even with the massive drawback of an unintelligent script and story, the entire cast do a relatively good job. The chemistry between the team members is on display, and it’s one that remains engaging and charming to witness. While Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen’s accents are as inconsistent as the screenplay, they manage to justify their recruitment into the Avengers. I actually really enjoyed Scarlet Witch’s mind games with the rest of the team. Exploring the inner psyches and torments of our heroes, added more weight to each decision and reaction. Heroes with fragility or past trauma are always a lot more interesting than the immortal beings they’re usually whittled down to. Meanwhile the action set pieces are handled well and certainly look the part. The film hits the action beats that a blockbuster should, and the spectacle is, for the most part, satisfying.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is an acceptable sequel, but loses the intellect, charm and cohesion that propelled the superhero team to popular stardom back in 2012. At the time, Avengers Assemble was a surprisingly enjoyable blockbuster that felt sincere and fitting to its origins and the source material. Meanwhile last year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier brought a sophisticated and thematically, engrossing story of conspiracy and espionage that offered a different perspective to the franchise’s characters and the genre itself. Guardians of the Galaxy took many by surprise with it’s gung-ho attitude and strong sense of humour throughout. This ability to infuse a unique element or personality has become an important factor in defining these individual films. Age of Ultron is an “Avengers” film, and by that stipulation it should be one of grandeur and lasting consequence. Yet while the aesthetics and performances are handled well, the sub-par writing leaves a film of missed opportunities and squandered ambition.

6/10 

Mad Max: Fury Road Review

I’ve always admired the Mad Max franchise’s depiction of a post-apocalyptic wasteland filled with ferocity, savagery and the roar of rusty engines. V8-powered, bolted together vehicles churning fire and oxidised steel on a horizon of hell is a welcome contrast to the grayscale and zombie-ridden surroundings the “post-apocalypse” genre has been saturated with. Yet as a story of “The Road Warrior’s” revenge, redemption and survival, the series hasn't had the same impact as its visuals and sound. George Miller’s recent career has been one filled with dancing penguins and little of anything resembling action cinema. Yet for a director who’s been 30 years absent from the franchise, Mad Max: Fury Road is arguably the best in the entire series. 

Essentially a two hour vehicular chase, Max is caught up in Imperator Furiosa’s break for freedom 

while being chased by Immortan Joe’s convoy of adrenaline-fuelled madness. The theme of survival is encapsulated in nearly every facet of the film’s world; the citizens of the Citadel are ruthlessly held under Joe’s clenched grip over the water supply. Joe himself needs to continue his line through his breeding girls. Furiosa’s attempt to escape the horrors of her current situation and Max’s sheer perseverance to endure. There’s little doubt that Fury Road focuses its attention on the action and visuals, which leads to the film suffering from a lack of depth towards the end. Yet for a script that’s light on substance, the likes of Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy offer a compelling team as the wreckage ensues. The brief moments of respite offer enough character to maintain their mysticism whilst giving them some semblance of humanity and empathy. Theron’s Furiosa takes centre stage in a commanding, yet fragile performance that steals the show from Max. Tom Hardy is suitable gruff and cynical under the unfortunate circumstances he finds himself in. There’s a flashy yet vain attempt to “re-address” his tragic backstory and psyche, but he shares the characteristics of a protagonist from the spaghetti western formula; weathered and mumbling. It’s entertaining, but a few more lines of dialogue wouldn’t have hurt him or the film. The supporting cast, especially Nicholas Hoult, does a similarly fine job.

While light on story and dialogue, the barebones nature offers a solid foundation for which the visuals and sound design flourish. The world of Mad Max is one of “fire and blood” and “madness” as our protagonist says in the opening monologue, and while the harshness and hostility of the environment and its inhabitants is clearly evident, the film is visually stylish and repeatedly stunning to watch. For an apocalyptic wasteland comprised of deserts and rocky outcrops, Miller injects a swell of colours and tones; yellows, oranges, and blues that add variation and vibrancy. The warped realities of society and humanity shown within the set and production design, help craft the treacherous surroundings and its characters. The symbolism of Valhalla, the War Boys’ chanting V8 in front of an podium of steering wheels, and the harvesting of “mother’s milk” add a twisted richness to film’s design. These small details further the construction and theorising of these personalities and locations which has been a staple of the franchise’s style. The careful use of CGI and Miller’s desire to champion practical effects really adds to the sheer savage and hard-hitting nature to the film. Vehicles twist and buckle under the weight of collisions and debris litters the pristine sand dunes. Everything has force and an incredible amount of speed. Meanwhile Junkie XL’s thunderous soundtrack of pounding drums, vigorous guitar strumming and sharp shifts in tone reinforce the crazed fury that’s being depicted on screen.

Mad Max: Fury Road is another fine example of action cinema that doesn’t require an over-zealous  and contrived screenplay to remain engrossing and thoroughly entertaining. A simple narrative, interesting characters, incredible production design and thrilling stunt choreography turn the two hour runtime into a beautiful and unhinged storm of destruction and lunacy. It’s lovely.

8/10