Wonder Woman

Tags

Aquaman, Ares, Batman, Batman v Superman, Captain America, Chris Pine, Connie Nielsen, Cybord, DC, DCEU, Diana Prince, Film, Film Review, Gal Gadot, Man Of Steel, Marvel, Movie, Movie Review, Patty Jenkins, Steve Trevor, Superhero, Superhero Movie, Superheroes, Superman, The Dark Knight, The First Avenger, The Flash, The Justice League, Wonder Woman, Zack Snyder

via comingsoon.net

“Wonder Woman” is the best DCEU movie so far and in my view one of the best superhero movies since “The Dark Knight”. It’s a joyful, funny, and intelligent film about the fact that humanity is worth fighting for despite its flaws.

“Wonder Woman” tells an origin story about its titular character, giving us a glimpse of her childhood and explaining how she became the hero that we saw in “Batman v Superman”. It’s a story which opens with Diana/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) growing up on the island of Themyscira, which is home to the Amazons. The Amazons are a race of women created by Zeus to protect humanity against Ares (the god of war), and it’s clear from the moment that this backstory is revealed that Ares is going to be the film’s main villain.

From here the film shows Diana’s grown both physically and emotionally over time, initially on the island as she learns how to use her strength to become a powerful warrior and then in our world during World War One. Having this movie set during that time period is very beneficial to the character of Wonder Woman, as it allows Patty Jenkins to concentrate on developing the character’s personality rather than wasting time with nods to other DCEU franchises.

As a character Diana is extremely well-developed by the end of this movie; we understand her background, her personality, and most importantly her motivations. She’s a character who at her very core wants to fight for justice and she believes that people are inherently good despite the fact that they do bad things. Her faith is tested throughout the movie, (particularly in the final act), and by the time the credits roll she has a much more realistic opinion of humanity, but the relationships that she builds prior to the movie’s close are strong enough to make her believe that despite people’s flaws they are worth saving.

In a worse film the character that I’ve just described would come across as condescending or too good to be true, (this is the way that I feel about Captain America as depicted by Marvel ever since “The First Avenger”), but Patty Jenkins does a great job of making Diana Prince relatable in spite of her perfection, thus making Wonder Woman feel like a superhero rather than a Mary Sue. By taking the character out of her comfort zone and throwing her into an alien environment Jenkins is able to portray flaws in Diana’s character which come across as sweet and well-intentioned, bringing a naivety to her which is completely understandable and also humanising.

“Wonder Woman” isn’t a film which thinks that its audience is going to buy into the main character in virtue of the fact that she can do amazing things in a fight, instead it takes its time to make the character likeable prior to throwing her into the action, something which movies like “Man of Steel” simply didn’t do.

via celebmafia.com

Towards the start of the film Wonder Woman sees a plane crash into the water surrounding Themyscira and without a second thought she dives in to save the pilot. This pilot, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), just so happens to be the first man that Wonder Woman has ever seen and she immediately appears to have a fondness for him. From that point onwards Diana and Steve build a relationship with one another, trading jokes and generally being affectionate in small but noticeable ways. When the pair set sail for London at the end of the first act they don’t squabble or act suspicious of one another, they co-exist, have banter, and Diana even goes so far as to insist that Steve sleep next to her despite the fact that she’s only just met him.

There’s an innocence to her character, an earnest lack of cynicism, and it meshes seamlessly with Steve’s idealistic but grounded perspective on the fractured world that’s waiting for them back home. Chris Pine’s performance makes it clear that Steve is tired of fighting and is hurt by the state of the world that he lives in, so there’s something incredibly heart-warming about seeing him build a relationship with someone who in virtue of her existence makes the world seem like a better place. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine are exceptional in this movie, not just because they have great comedic timing or because they have a presence on screen, but because they have strong chemistry and together they are immensely likeable. They make you smile every time that they smile, and as an audience member you can genuinely route for them from start to finish which is so incredibly refreshing in a cinematic universe filled with brooding, jaded characters.

From a technical standpoint this film is also very striking, with solid CGI and a more varied colour palette than we’re used to seeing in DCEU movies. That’s not to say that it’s always a colourful film, after all much of it takes place in scenery which has been ravaged by war, but it doesn’t feel as bereft of vibrancy as “Batman v Superman” did.

The visual style that Zack Snyder developed in films like “Man of Steel” and “Batman v Superman” carries over into this film, making action sequences feel as though they were ripped straight out of a comic book or possibly even out of a video game. This larger-than-life approach to fight scenes is something which I have previously criticised – and I stand by those criticisms – but here Patty Jenkins makes it work because she takes the time to makes us care about the characters, so that by the time the fight scenes become the focus of the film we already believe that Wonder Woman is a badass. She isn’t a man in a suit like Batman, doing things that look so far removed from human possibility that they take you right out of the experience of watching the film; she’s a warrior who was created by Zeus himself with the hope that she could keep people safe. As such, it makes sense that she can do things that normal people can’t do – that she can run faster, jump higher, punch harder, etc. – and the fact that we like her so much makes a huge difference because we want to see her win. When somebody tries to hurt her we’re invested in seeing her prevail, so when she flies through the air to stop a sniper from killing innocent people we don’t scoff at the lack of realism, we cheer because our hero has come out on top!

Of course, there are criticisms which can be levelled at this film. In my view these issues are minimal, but they are noticeable enough to mention and I did find myself considering them whilst I was watching the movie. The first issue I had with this film was that the beginning was too slow, and although it wasn’t bad per se it didn’t give me a concrete indication that this was going to be a good movie.

The start of the film was designed simply to introduce the character of Diana and foreshadow what was going to happen later, which is okay, but for me it was a little uninspired. As mentioned earlier in this review it was clear that Ares was going to be this film’s main villain when he was mentioned in one of its first scenes, and although this is understandable because it’s useful to introduce characters early in a narrative to make them feel important, the way that it was done felt lazy to me.

The first time that we hear Ares’ name in this film is in an expository scene between Diana and her mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), in which the latter tells the story of how the Amazons came to be, what their purpose is, and how they (or rather Zeus) defeated the infamous villain. This scene is fine – it’s the type of scene you see a lot in movies when they don’t know how to get information across to the audience because they can’t show a time-consuming background story – but it isn’t great. It’s the least compelling scene in the whole movie because information is regurgitated to the audience simply so that the rest of the movie can exist. It’s a necessary scene, but it should’ve been executed in a more creative way and it doesn’t feel as though it belongs in a movie which for the most part is fantastic.

The other issue I have with this film is with its villain, the aforementioned Ares, who remains absent for the majority of the movie. The fact that he doesn’t appear until the end of the movie isn’t a criticism at all, it’s just a normal trope of storytelling where there’s a final act twist or a big reveal; the real problem is that he isn’t very interesting. He basically hates humanity because he sees that people do bad things, and because of this he wants to destroy the world – this, for me, is a very lacklustre motivation.

It’s perhaps unfair to criticise Ares too excessively because he’s the first villain that this iteration of Wonder Woman has faced on screen in her own movie, so the writers can’t really allow him to overshadow the hero, but Ares is just so plain. If he hates humanity so much why doesn’t he just go somewhere where there aren’t any people? There’s an island full of women who are separated from the rest of humanity in the middle of the ocean so we know that that’s a possibility, so why is exterminating humanity so important to him? I know these might seem like throwaway comments designed to denigrate a character that I didn’t like – which they are – but personally I don’t get on with villains who seem like their only reason for existing in a film’s universe is to directly oppose the worldview of the protagonist. He serves a purpose because he establishes a facet of Wonder Woman’s character, which is that she sees the flaws in humanity and yet still chooses to believe that people are worth fighting for, but other than that he has no place in the movie which is why he doesn’t appear until the final battle.

Nonetheless, these criticisms are small when compared to the triumph of “Wonder Woman” as a whole. This is a movie in which almost everything works; the costume design is awesome, the acting is brilliant, the story is effective, and the whole thing is incredibly entertaining from start to finish. Wonder Woman is the perfect character to breathe life into the DCEU and it’s great to see a film in which a female superhero is portrayed as a powerful and sympathetic character rather than as a side-kick, so I would recommend that everyone see this movie as soon as possible.

8.5/10

Suicide Squad

Tags

Amanda Waller, Batfleck, Batman, Batman v Superman, Ben Affleck, Cara Delevingne, Cinema, David Ayer, DC, Deadshot, Enchantress, Film, Harley Quinn, Henry Cavill, House of Cards, Jai Courtney, Jared Leto, Joel Kinnaman, Joker, Man Of Steel, Margot Robbie, Marvel, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Movie Review, Rick Flag, Suicide Squad, Superhero, Superhero Movie, Superheroes, Superman, Supervillain, The Dark Knight, The Joker, The Justice League, The Killing, Tom Hardy, Viola Davis, Will Smith

via screenrant.com

“Suicide Squad” is the third addition to the DC cinematic universe, and it’s a film that I’ve been looking forward to seeing for quite a long time. I was excited by the cast when it was first announced, although at the time we were promised Tom Hardy as opposed to Jai Courtney, and I felt that the premise would fit perfectly with the darker tone that DC aims for (darker than Marvel that is). However, as time passed I became more and more worried by the movie’s development, and this worry was only accentuated by the films that DC churned out in the build up to this one.

Sadly, having seen “Suicide Squad” I can say that it suffers from the same problems as its predecessors, and in fact it’s far worse than the average films which have come before it. “Man of Steel” was poorly paced and lacking a focused narrative, and “Batman v Superman” was overstuffed with characters and plot points, so it’s no surprise that this film retains those problems whilst also adding to them substantially.

There’s something very unsettling about watching a multi-million dollar movie helmed by a competent director and feeling as though you could’ve edited it better than the paid professionals, but that’s the scenario I encountered when I sat down to see “Suicide Squad”. Obviously this thought is farcical because someone with no experience using editing software can’t edit a film to the standard that you see in a big budget blockbuster, but the thought occurs because anyone can delegate and it’s easy to pinpoint the flaws in this film.

With “Suicide Squad” the issues are so clear that they’re practically rubbed in your face throughout; whether it be the lacklustre story, absence of character development, or poor lighting in action sequences. These problems never really leave your mind if you’re paying attention, so personally I couldn’t enjoy what I was watching at any point. Everything could’ve been done better; from performances, direction, cinematography, and lighting, to exposition, dialogue, and story progression, which from my perspective means that the film is a complete failure.

The story was poorly paced and dull, as initially dialogue was used as exposition in the most lazy of ways, with the brain behind the squad making a case for using villains as a last resort when catastrophe occurs. This could’ve been fine had it come later on in the movie, but it was so transparent that its only purpose was to set-up the rest of the film in as timely a manner as possible and this hurt the characters going forward. The first scene tried to establish who the characters were and explain why they were in custody whilst also attempting to make each of them seem interesting and worthy of attention, but it was too vague with the former and as such didn’t achieve the latter.

The initial set-up raised more questions than it answered, because it made no sense that on the one hand we were told that the characters were ‘the worst of the worst’ and on the other we saw that they were redeemable. We saw (and heard through the exposition) that Deadshot (Will Smith) refused to kill Batman (Ben Affleck) in front of his daughter even though it would’ve allowed him to escape police custody, and we also saw that Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) was a decent person before she was manipulated by The Joker (Jared Leto), so what we were being told and what we were witnessing didn’t truly correlate. I don’t know what kind of world these people live in, but in the real world the people who are the worst of the worst don’t spare lives for the sake of their daughter’s feelings when it means that they’ll have to spend a lifetime behind bars.

via moviepilot.com

Additionally, there was a lack of power-symmetry between members of the group which the opening scene made all the more apparent. We were first introduced to Deadshot and Harley Quinn who are basically just normal people – one of them has good aim and the other is a lunatic but apart from that they have no special abilities – but then we found out that there was also an ancient witch in the group who can basically do anything, whenever she wants. With Enchantress (Cara Delevingne) on side there was really no need to bring anyone else in, which was made particularly clear when she travelled to Tehran and back in a matter of seconds without so much as a bead of sweat dripping down her forehead! Enchantress is a god, whereas Harley Quinn is a quirky lunatic with a baseball bat – you do the math.

A smart way to push the group together would’ve been to have a disaster happen which forced the government to assemble them as a kind of last resort/drastic response, but instead the government brought them together on the crazy idea that some unknown threat would rear its head at an indefinite point in the future, which is stupid. Really stupid. ‘What if Superman came down from the sky and ripped the roof off of the White House?’ isn’t a sentence which justifies unifying witches and criminals – fighting fire with fire is a nice turn of phrase but it isn’t a practical idea.

Moreover, making Enchantress the bad guy of the film was a nonsensical idea to begin with because there’s just no way that our ragtag team of villains would’ve been able to stop her! A much better villain for the film would’ve been The Joker because he’s just a person with a few screws loose – he’d still have been a powerful enemy given the fact that the squad weren’t in sync for the majority of the film, but he wouldn’t have felt unstoppable. In addition, using The Joker in this way would’ve given Leto more screen time and allowed Harley Quinn to feel as though she had a necessary place in the film, something which would’ve made Margot Robbie’s performance more palatable from my perspective.

via youtube.com

At the end of the day Harley Quinn really wasn’t worth having in Amanda Waller’s (Viola Davis) squad, and as such the character felt like a ploy to sell merchandise rather than a worthwhile addition to the cast. She lacks depth because she’s never actually unlikeable and we don’t know what she’s done wrong to be thrown in jail, other than complying with the whims of a man who emotionally manipulated her and physically abused her!

Moreover, whilst Robbie’s performance was fine considering the awful script that she was working with, it’s not as though she was great in the film. She was good, and I think people who’ve said otherwise are being slightly harsh because she had very little to work with, but she wasn’t worthy of excessive praise. On the contrary, I think that we should view her performance as the minimum that we should expect rather than as something to applaud.

Sadly, the performances in this film were pretty poor across the board, particularly that of Joel Kinnaman who was a real disappointment for me personally given how good I think he’s capable of being. In “The Killing” and “House of Cards” he’s great, but here he was absolutely terrible and his delivery felt incredibly out of place in a variety of scenes. Still, I wouldn’t place all the blame for this movie’s quality on the actors involved, because at the end of the day the best builder can’t construct a house with one plank of wood. The writing for this film was absolutely and unequivocally indefensible, and I feel justified in saying that it was the main reason that the movie was as terrible as it turned out to be.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, “Suicide Squad” is incredibly boring and lacking in any semblance of fun. The most colourful thing about it was the title sequence and it seemed to go on forever. I’d love to pretend that I have something good to say about this movie because I really wanted to like it, but in reality I don’t. I didn’t like anything about it, and even though I love Margot Robbie and think that her take on Harley Quinn was passable, it seemed better than it was because everybody else performed so badly. “Suicide Squad” was billed as a gritty but quirky film about a group of supervillains who are forced to fight evil, but sadly when it takes off its mask and cape you see that underneath it’s a generic superhero film in disguise, only without the spectacle.

1/10

Captain America : Civil War

Tags

Agent 13, Agent Carter, Agents of Shield, Ant-Man, Anthony Mackie, Avengers: Infinity War, Baron Zemo, Batman, Batman v Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Ben Affleck, Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America, Captain America : Civil War, CGI, Chadwick Boseman, Chris Evans, Cinema, Crossbones, Daniel Bruhl, Elizabeth Olson, Falcon, Film, Film Review, Frank Grillo, Hawkeye, Henry Cavill, Iron Man, Jeremy Renner, Josh Brolin, Marvel, Marvel Cinematic Universe, MCU, Movie Review, Paul Bettany, Paul Rudd, Robert Downey Jr, S.H.I.E.L.D., Scarlet Witch, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Sharon Carter, Spider-Man, Steve Rogers, Superman, Thanos, The Avengers, The Winter Soldier, Tom Holland, Tony Stark, Vision, Wakanda

via forbes.com

“Captain America : Civil War” is the culmination of eight years of planning and in many ways it is Marvel’s masterpiece. The action, the CGI, and the performances are great, and in my opinion it’s the best film to feature the main MCU cast thus far. However, for my money “Civil War” is still a victim of the Marvel formula, as it features another lacklustre villain and a story filled with plot holes.

The story, as you would expect, relates to an internal dispute within The Avengers. After a flashback opening involving The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) the film starts proper as Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olson) attempt to prevent a biological attack and capture Crossbones in Lagos (Frank Grillo). The mission goes wrong as Scarlet Witch accidently takes the lives of Wakandans on a good will trip, and this leads to a dilemma – report to an international governing body or retire. Some of The Avengers agree – Iron Man’s (Robert Downey Jr) group – and some don’t – Captain America’s group.

There’s more to the story than that, and in fact it’s The Winter Soldier who really causes the team to divide, but there’s nothing that you can’t work out based on what you’ve seen in the trailers. I have to say that in my opinion the trailers gave far too much away, because you can’t feel worried about a character when they appear in the trailers in a scene that hasn’t occurred yet, and the trailers shows a lot of scenes which happen late on in the film.

via indiewire.com

The biggest issue I have with the plot, (other than the fact that people are very ungrateful to The Avengers for saving the world multiple times), is that it isn’t plausible that our heroes would get into such a mess given that they have such a good rapport. They’re smart people with valuable life experience, so it seems to me that they could always talk about their issues in a civilised and intelligent manner. They aren’t a group of meatheads as this film would have you believe – Tony Stark is a genius, Vision (Paul Bettany) is basically a god, and Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) is a king. They can talk it out if they want to.

Moreover, neither side’s motivations really make sense because they treat the problem as though it’s incredibly black-and-white. Tony Stark refuses to accept that Steve Rogers doesn’t want to report to a committee to decide which people he saves and which he doesn’t, even though he knows that Rogers has been burned in the past by S.H.I.E.L.D. On the other side, Rogers refuses to explain this to Stark and he constantly portrays himself as the bad guy even though his rationale makes complete sense.

Both Stark and Rogers act like idiots so that the film has its (artificial) conflict, which in turn makes that conflict feel utterly hollow. The writers are too scared to break the mould to create real problems, because this would result in real and lasting differences; if The Avengers are truly and irreparably destroyed from the inside then they won’t be able to team up against Thanos (Josh Brolin) in the upcoming “Avengers : Infinity War” movie, which is unthinkable for Marvel. As such, nothing of real significance occurs in this movie.

This also speaks to a larger issue that the film has, which is that because Marvel’s writers are always thinking about the next step in their filmmaking schedule they refuse to kill off their characters when necessary. When you call your movie “Civil War” it’s rational for your audience to expect that at least one person will die, because the word ‘war’ evokes thoughts of chaos and death. Plus, if you have several godlike beings attacking each other then there should be some damage right?

(SPOILER ALERT) Alas, no one from The Avengers dies in this film despite the fact that planes are thrown at protagonists, people fall from the sky, and arrows are shot around by Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) as though they were made out of jelly. Because of this I personally couldn’t take the movie seriously at all after about the ¾ mark, and by then I’d lost any fleeting interest I had in the plot. Say what you want about “Batman v Superman”, but at least it had the guts to kill off one of its major characters (sort of).

However, with all that said I still enjoyed the film. The main fight scene between the two rivalling factions is an utter triumph, despite the fact that the stakes are so low that it feels more like a food fight than a battle of life and death, and with Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) fighting alongside the main cast of The Avengers it’s hard to shake the feeling of genius that permeates the action. Within the extended battle sequence we see such things as Spider-Man stealing Captain America’s shield, using his webbing to take down a supersized Ant-Man, and taking down Falcon and The Winter Soldier as though they were toddlers, and I have to say that it is glorious.

The real beauty of the film is the way in which it introduces new characters to the story, and how those characters fit into that story, which is why I felt that Black Panther and Spider-Man made the movie. I can’t wait to see their solo films, and I hope that they have a large part to play in the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Nevertheless, other characters weren’t handled so well, particularly Baron Zemo (Daniel Brühl) who was another forgettable Marvel villain. I still don’t understand the motivation that was driving him throughout the film, (which is probably my fault because he was so dull that when he turned up I tended to switch off), and for the most part he was a pointless player in a movie which didn’t even need a villain in the first place.

All in all, “Captain America : Civil War” was an entertaining but predictable experience. It was action-packed, polished, and filled with drama, but it was hard to feel invested in what was a fairly paint-by-numbers film. Marvel have a successful formula going right now and they know how to create amazing action with fantastic CGI, but this formula also contains familiar problems such as underdeveloped villains, awkward romance, and unnecessary comedy. “Captain America : Civil War” is plagued by these issues, so whilst I enjoyed the film for what it was, I felt that it could’ve been much better had it broke the mould.

6.5/10

Green Room

Tags

Alia Shawkat, Anton Yelchin, Batman v Superman, Cinema, Dead Kennedys, Film, Film Review, Green Room, Horror, Horror Film, Horror Movie, Horror-Thriller, Imogen Poots, Jeremy Saulnier, Movie Review, Music, Patrick Stewart, Punk Rock, The Ain't Rights, The Avengers

A couple of days ago I was lucky enough to see “Green Room” prior to its UK wide release and I was impressed. It’s an American horror-thriller written and directed by Jeremy Saulnier and, whilst it isn’t a film for the masses, it suited my tastes perfectly. It’s slow-paced, tense, and honest, featuring great performances from Imogen Poots and Patrick Stewart.

The film revolves around a punk-rock band known as ‘The Ain’t Rights’, a bunch of misfits who are in the process of gigging in the Pacific Northwest. They take their music seriously and they care more about it than they do about money, so in an effort to stay fresh and focus on the live experience they have no social media presence – something which they regret as the story progresses. The film really gets going when a local radio host sets them up with a gig outside of Portland, but fails to mention that the place they’ll be playing is a neo-Nazi bar in the middle of nowhere. When they find this out it doesn’t particularly faze them, but for a quick laugh they perform a Dead Kennedys cover – ‘Nazi Punks Fuck Off’. This sets the tone for the rest of the film, as the band go up against a bunch of vicious skinheads in a battle of life-and-death.

However, it isn’t the song itself which causes this face-off. Whilst the song aggravates some people in the crowd, it doesn’t bring about any sort of riot or start a fight – it’s simply a wink to the audience about what’s about to go down and a moment of comedy to offset the upcoming violence. The catalyst which sets the violent events of the movie into motion is actually the murder of a young woman (Emily played by Taylor Tunes) in the green room; a murder which takes place whilst ‘The Ain’t Rights’ are on stage.

The reason that the band gets mixed up in the craziness is that Sam (Alia Shawkat), the only girl in the group, left her phone on charge in the green room whilst she was playing. Thus, when Pat (another member of the band, played by Anton Yelchin) went to retrieve it for her, he saw the girl’s dead body and freaked out. It was all just a horrible mistake, which feeds into the story of the film quite well because nothing that happens is meant to feel larger than life – it’s just a situation that goes wrong and the audience gets to watch on as the band try to survive.

via fact.co.uk

This set-up is awesome and easy to follow, but if I had one complaint it would be that the reason that Emily died in the first place was pretty mundane. Given that her death sets the meat of film into motion, I would’ve liked if there had been a more interesting story behind it than the one which played out on screen – I’m not saying that it was terrible, but it wasn’t particularly inventive.

Still, there were plenty of other aspects of the story that I did like, particularly the violence and the pacing. The way that the film was paced allowed the story to flow naturally, which meant that tension was built and the characters, (particularly the villains), were afforded more time to develop. Whilst it may have been slightly slow at times, this served the plot because once the protagonists were out in the open they were extremely vulnerable. If they had tried to take the fight to the skinheads straight away then they would’ve all died, and if they had all died at once then the story would’ve stagnated, which meant that to keep the film going the characters had to talk things out and fully understand the decisions they were making – thus they spent a lot of time hiding away in the green room. This made sense because the characters were in a very precarious situation, one that they probably didn’t want to face and would be happy to put off, and also because in that kind of situation you really need to be able to psych yourself up for the worst case scenario.

My favourite thing about “Green Room” was definitely the violence, which whilst uncomfortable, was incredibly unflinching and admirable. I’m not squeamish, I never have been and I never will be, so seeing a bit of blood here and there doesn’t bother me at all. What does bother me when I’m watching a film is dishonesty – not in the traditional sense of course, but in the sense that what’s happening in front of my eyes isn’t a true depiction of what would happen if that situation really occurred. This is an issue which applies to all films, not simply films like this one which feature violence heavily – films like “The Avengers” and “Batman v Superman” which don’t even technically take place in the same universe as ours should still be honest with their audience, because they depict violence, aggression, and ultimately death. They lie to their audience when they tone these elements down, telling those in attendance that when a man is thrown at a wall he can immediately get back up, when in reality the man would bleed, suffer, and probably never fully recover from his injuries.

“Green Room” doesn’t face these sorts of problems, because when a person is cut they are cut deep – you see the fleshy parts of them that are usually reserved for A&E, and the camera doesn’t turn away when things get messy. There are no convenient plot holes to save characters when they get stabbed or attacked by rabid dogs, because there are no such get-out-of-jail-free cards in life; when people get attacked by vicious men like the ones in this film they get hurt and they die, painfully, because that’s the situation they are in. From where I’m standing, this is the beauty of “Green Room” – it tells a story, it tells it bluntly, and then it ends without a happy ever after.

The only real issue that I had with this movie as a whole was with the villain, Darcy (Patrick Stewart). For the majority of the film he was a brilliant character – cold and calculated, you got the sense that this wasn’t the first time that he’d had to resolve a situation that had gone south. Patrick Stewart’s performance was perfect, as he gave a level of gravitas and assurance to the character that was desperately needed, and delivered his lines with authority.

(SPOILER ALERT) However, when push came to shove the writers needed to have two of their protagonists make it out alive, which meant that Darcy had to disappear. If he didn’t then it just wouldn’t have been believable that the pair got out alive, because he was too cunning and oozed control. The issue then is 1) that the character being who he was – a leader of men with a high level of intellect – would never have taken a chance by leaving before the job was done; and 2) the reason that he left was pretty stupid. He basically left to oversee the creation of a fake crime scene – a scene which would ensure that legally the gang wasn’t culpable for the murders that they had committed – but this wasn’t as important as making sure that nobody lived to tell the tale. If any of the band members survived then the creation of the crime scene would’ve been pointless, so although time was of the essence, in my opinion the more pressing matter was finishing off the job.  As such, Darcy should’ve stayed until all the protagonists were dead and put the final touches to the crime scene later on if need be.

All in all, “Green Room” was a thoughtful film with fantastic performances, and although it wasn’t without its issues, I loved watching on as the protagonists tried to outsmart the antagonists. I admired the fact that violence was used sparingly but honestly, and although it isn’t a film for everyone I would heartily recommend it.

8/10

Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice

Tags

Adventureland, Amy Adams, Anne Hathaway, Ant-Man, Aquaman, Avatar, Batman, Batman v Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Ben Affleck, Black Panther, Captain America, Captain America : Civil War, CGI, Chadwick Boseman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cinema, Comics, Cyborg, Dawn of Justice, DC, Deadpool, Doomsday, Ezra Miller, Film, Gal Gadot, Guardians of the Galaxy, Henry Cavill, Jared Leto, Jason Momoa, Jeremy Irons, Jesse Eisenberg, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, Man Of Steel, Marvel, MCU, Morgan Freeman, Movie Review, Ray Fisher, Spider-Man, Suicide Squad, Superman, The Avengers, The Daily Planet, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Flash, The Joker, The Justice League, Tom Holland, Wonder Woman, Zombieland

On Wednesday morning I finally saw “Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice”. I did my best to resist the temptation of seeing yet another superhero movie at the cinema, but alas my will-power just wasn’t strong enough and I caved in. I’d heard mixed reviews, and having hated “Man of Steel” for various (and I think very valid) reasons, I was trying to avoid giving DC any more of my money.

Having seen the film I can say that I was justified in my reluctance, because whilst there were parts of it that I enjoyed, there were other moments at which I couldn’t help but roll my eyes and shake my head in disgust. I’m being overdramatic of course, but when the main motivation for warring superheroes to team up is that their mothers share the same first name, you know that there’s something drastically wrong with the film that you’re watching.

Whilst Ben Affleck is a fine Batman, and he isn’t putting on a voice when playing the hero (instead he has a device which modifies his voice for him – why couldn’t Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) have come up with one of those in Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” series?), he doesn’t inspire love or devotion to the character and he’s far less likeable than Christian Bale’s version. This isn’t a major problem because at least it differentiates him from the previous iteration of the character, but when the solo Batman film that has already been confirmed comes into theatres I won’t be rushing to see it… unless Jared Leto is amazing in “Suicide Squad” and The Joker is the villain.

Henry Cavill is also okay in this movie – he’s definitely better than he was in “Man of Steel” – but Superman as a character is given no real personality, and the only thing that gives him any humanity at all is his relationship with Lois Lane. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad if Lane herself was likeable in the movie, but Amy Adams (who I hate to criticise because I like her as an actress) was awful and her character had no real depth; you can basically sum her up by saying that she’s a reporter who loves Superman because that’s really all there is to her.

As a whole the film just doesn’t work. I could write 20,000 words of criticism on it and still have more bad words to say, but instead I’m going to bullet point what I liked and disliked about it and then talk about why I think that it should never have been made.

Let’s start with the things that I liked:

1. (SPOILER ALERT) The court scene – Despite the fact that “Batman v Superman” was mostly a paint-by-numbers story, the scene in which the courtroom was blown up was quite unexpected and powerful. The aftermath could’ve been more exciting, perhaps with the dust settling and Superman still stood in the middle of the debris for all to see, but it was still a great scene in an average movie.

 

2. Gal Gadot was a pretty good Wonder Woman – I actually really liked Wonder Woman in the film and I thought that she was introduced well. Her initial introduction felt a lot like Catwoman’s (Anne Hathaway) in “The Dark Knight Rises”, but it was still good. The only problem I have here is that the marketing for the film ruined it slightly by having Wonder Woman appear in the trailer.

 

3. The question that the film fumbled over a couple of times – ‘should there be a Superman?’ – was a fair one to ask, and could’ve been fascinating if it was allowed more time to be explored.

 

4. The action was well shot.

 

On to the things that I didn’t like (expect a longer list):

1. Alfred – Although I like Jeremy Irons and I don’t think that his portrayal of Alfred was completely awful, I thought that the film underused him by making him something of a comic relief character. He had the potential to be so much more given how recklessly Bruce Wayne was acting, so it was a shame that most of the time he simply went along with whatever Wayne told him to do.

 

2. Lex Luthor – Jesse Eisenberg is another actor that I don’t take any enjoyment from criticising. Eisenberg is great at what he does and he’s been in two of my favourite films (“Adventureland” and “Zombieland”), but he should never have been cast in this movie. His portrayal of the iconic villain is unique and he gives it everything, but it comes off as cartoonish and ridiculous, destroying tension and bringing more laughs than gasps.

 

3. Doomsday – If DC had courage in their convictions then they wouldn’t have allowed another villain to appear in this movie other than Luthor, but alas, they chose to throw Doomsday into the mix so that the heroes could team up at the end. What they should’ve done was got a better writer on board and focused on the war of ideologies between Batman and Superman.

 

4. Martha – Superman convinced Batman not to kill him by saying that his mother’s name was Martha. That’s all that really needs to be said here.

 

5. The Daily Planet is a terrible newspaper which allows its staff to come and go as they please and write rogue articles.

 

6. So many scenes should’ve been cut from the film – the dream sequences, when Batman confronted Lex Luthor at the end, the scene in which Superman and Doomsday were hit by a nuke, and many more, were awful and should’ve been omitted from the final product.

 

7. The dialogue was terrible.

(From left to right) Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, and Gal Gadot at Comic-Con.

From my perspective, “Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice” is an example of when business trumps quality in film-making. With “Captain America : Civil War” set to smash box-office records and continue Marvel’s commercial and critical dominance in the superhero genre, DC had to do something big. Their answer was to throw their two most famous heroes together, in what was billed as a gladiator match yet ended up being a team-up against a giant CGI monster.

The baffling thing about this isn’t that DC’s biggest heroes tried to kill each other and then joined forces, but rather DC’s crazy decision to throw Batman into the mix without first giving him a solo movie. They clumsily rehashed his backstory and tripped over his motivation for taking the fight to Superman, and instead of building the character properly they tried to fit multiple storylines into what should’ve been a focused narrative.

DC is desperate to compete with Marvel financially and yet they fail to take the lessons that Marvel has taught them on board. They misunderstand how the universe that Marvel has built has developed over time and they ignore where it all began.

Marvel has spent an admirable amount of time building its characters and creating a very noticeable tone which carries through each film, and they didn’t have the entirety of their main cast together in one movie until they had each had their own solo flick. This meant that by the time that “The Avengers” came along Marvel had already acquired a dedicated fan-base of comic book readers and mainstream cinemagoers, and thus they made an obscene amount of money from that movie. Now that this initial development has passed they are able to throw characters like Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) into the mix prior to giving them their solo films, but they earned the right to do this and they have strong characters alongside them.

Thinking back, Marvel’s cinematic universe took off with “Iron Man”, a film based on a character that had never truly been a fan favourite. Marvel took a character that they knew they could build around, cast him perfectly, and then made a coherent and isolated film about him which only connected itself to the rest of the MCU through its end credit scene and a couple of Easter eggs here and there.

If DC really wanted to create a dynasty like Marvel’s and steal some of their thunder what they should’ve done was saved Batman for either a brief cameo in their upcoming “Suicide Squad” movie, or his own solo movie, and then they should’ve made a second “Man of Steel” film which focused on the question ‘should there be a Superman?’. This would’ve given Superman much more depth as a character and allowed us to better understand Batman before the pair faced off in a future film. Plus, in the meantime they could’ve introduced characters like Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), in much more natural and interesting ways, instead of shoehorning them into an already convoluted film like they did in “Batman v Superman”.

Of course, it’s easy to make these statements in hindsight, but it really is mindboggling that a company like DC could be so impatient. People aren’t stupid – if a movie looks like it’s going to be a muddle then they won’t go to see it, and if they aren’t going to go on the opening weekend then they’ll probably be indifferent enough to listen to a couple of negative reviews and stay well clear. You can’t just throw special effects at people and expect a crowd to gather anymore – we live in a post “Avatar” world where amazing CGI is commonplace, going to the cinema costs £10+, and the superhero genre is incredibly diluted! If it’s a choice between something new like “Deadpool”, “Guardians of the Galaxy”, and “Ant-Man”, or something that fans have seen multiple times before like a new Batman movie, I think that most people will choose the former.

At the end of the day, “Batman v Superman” was exactly what I thought it would be. A film which was doomed from the start because it was trying to do too much, with the wrong writers and director on board, and a marketing team that was so scared that people wouldn’t go to see it that they showed everything they had on the trailer. The action was good and so were the effects but modern day audiences have a right to expect more for their money. The actors did what they could to save the film, and Henry Cavill was a lot better this time around than he was in “Man of Steel”, but ultimately the script let him and the audience down.

5/10