Film Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I thought that I would hate Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Ever since the film was first announced, there has been a thick area of scepticism surrounding it. Man of Steel failed to win over many critics. Some questioned whether DC were in too much of a hurry to get their "cinematic universe" off the ground to compete with Marvel. Many (myself included) disputed the casting of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight after the fiasco that was 2003's Daredevil, while others felt they were rebooting the caped crusader too soon after Christopher Nolan's game-changing trilogy had ended. The trailers and viral marketing campaigns did little but fan these flames, and early reviews for the film have been largely negative.

To be fair, some of the criticism is warranted. The studio does try and cram a lot into this movie. In fact, I'd go as far to say that, if split, Dawn of Justice has enough to story for at least 2 or 3 great parts. The film serves as a sequel to Man of Steel, the introduction of a new Batman, the introduction of Wonder Woman, the set-up of the Justice League, and that's all before our titular heroes have even had a chance to square off. This leads to the film's editing to be like that of a Game of Thrones episode, with the viewer forced to go back and forth between different stories and different characters perspectives. Now, while I didn't find this to be an issue, I can see how some viewers may have found it distracting. There have been other criticisms of the movie thrown about (such as the film's dark tone and Batman's apparent love for violent murder) however there was only one thing in BvS that really ground my gears. The dream sequences. Zack Snyder, this ain't Dallas. All they did was distract us from the already busy story at hand and provide a trailer for what I can only presume is going to be a future crossover with the Mad Max franchise. Dream sequences never work for me, however in this film they were done to death, and that was the element that frustrated me most about this film.

That is all the negative comments I have to make on this film. My opinion is that this film has been given an unduly hard-time. Yes, there are flaws, but let me just say this; Dawn of Justice is an absolute joy-ride. Let's not over-analyse this for just a second: this is Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman sharing the screen together. That's cool to see. Fans have been clamouring for years to see DC's big three unite on the one screen and, when it finally happens, it is more than worth the wait. And that brings me to another point; the fights sequences in Batman v Superman are incredible. From Superman battling Doomsday into the atmosphere, to Batman taking out thugs, to the final battle between our two protagonists, Dawn of Justice hits a home-run in terms of its action. But, in contrast to this, it's the dramatic character building scenes that really made me sit up and take notice of this film, and that is largely due to the work of a very stellar ensemble cast.

Out of all the talented actors on display, I have to give the most credit to Ben Affleck. I was wrong. Ben Affleck has the potential to be the greatest Batman of all time. Brooding and intense, Affleck brings a darkness to his turn as the great detective that far surpasses both Michael Keaton and Christian Bale's initial outings under the cowl. Even when not in costume, he underplays his interpretation of Bruce Wayne which not only is in keeping with the idea that this is an older version of the character than we are used to seeing, but also serves to make his performance as the billionaire playboy more believable. I could go on but if you are still on the fence as to whether you will see this film or not, I would suggest taking a trip to your local cinema purely to see this absolutely perfect portrayal of the Dark Knight. Gal Gadot is also a breath of fresh air as Wonder Woman. Gadot oozes a sense of authority, and her interactions with Affleck's Bruce Wayne make for some of the film's most interesting moments. We only get a hint of what the character can be, but the sight of her laughing in the heat of battle in the film's final act is a joy to see. Jeremy Iron's Alfred is as sarcastic as he is wise, while Jesse Eisenberg's Mark Zuckerberg/Lex Luthor is the perfect maniacal billionaire for the current era, and his back and forth with Holly Hunter's Senator Finch helps to explore the depth and the inner torment the character posses. Returning cast members from Man of Steel are also stellar, but it really is Batfleck who steals the show. Sensational casting.

The bulk of the credit though has to go to director Zack Snyder. Snyder was handed a poison chalice in the sense that no one had faith in this film. He was forced by the studio to squeeze a lot of elements into this one movie. And he pulled it off. On screen, it all comes together. The first half of this movie plays like a political thriller and does explore some pretty complex themes, and you can tell this is where Snyder is in his element as he lets the plot play out steadily, putting all the chess pieces in the right places. And when the action really kicks in (particularly in the climatic battle with Doomsday) the 300 director's eye for a great visual is on perfect display. The story, while busy, never feels overly convoluted, and when all the elements come together it is very rewarding indeed. While I still disagree somewhat with the studio's decision to rush the opening of its cinematic universe, I do believe that Snyder has balanced the film nicely and has done the best job he could have with what was given to him.

In conclusion, I don't see why Dawn of Justice has been almost universally panned by critics. Yes, it does cram a lot in and some of the plot points are pretty suspect, but this is the case with most films in the superhero genre! Batman v Superman is a film with phenomenal acting, great action sequences, fantastic back-and-forth dialogue and more than enough exciting visuals to keep you gripped throughout. It brings us the best Batman in years, and the amount of strong female characters continues an exciting trend that has been rife in recent blockbusters (with Gal Gadot and Holly Hunter in particular arguably stealing every scene they are in). I didn't think I would enjoy it, but the film's serious tone, dark humour and riveting plot won me over. I recognise its faults but, for me, the pros outway the cons. It's a movie that tries to do something very ambitious and admirable, in the amount of tasks it takes on a once and the legendary status of the characters it includes. Dawn of Justice really is a succulent smorgasbord of superhero enjoyment and I would highly recommend this film to anyone.

Score: 8.4/10

Film Review- 10 Cloverfield Lane

10 Cloverfield Lane may share a similar title to another Bad Robot Production's film, however it is anything but a linear sequel to 2008's action/thriller/monster movie "Cloverfield". The original script was actually titled "The Cellar" but, after Paramount bought the rights in 2012, the film was green-lit to act as a spiritual successor in the Cloverfield franchise, with Damien Chazelle attached to direct. Chazelle then departed the project to make his directorial debut with the Oscar winning musical drama "Whiplash", opening the door for Dan Trachtenburg to take the helm. Along with the fact that one of the production companies attached to the film also went out of business during pre-production, it's safe to say that 10 Cloverfield Lane went through its own taste of development hell. In saying all this, for the most part, it does not show.

To summarise briefly, 10 Cloverfield Lane follows the character of Michelle, who leaves her home after an argument with her fiancé. While driving through a rural area, her car is taken out off the road and she passes out from her injuries. She then wakes up in a small concrete room, her leg broken and chained to the wall, with her supposed captor, Howard, explaining to her that they are in an underground bunker and that they cannot leave, as all civilisation outside has now ended. Ultimately, Michelle must unravel the mystery over whether Howard is right in what he says, or if there are more sinister motivations for his actions.

First and foremost, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an extremely well-acted movie. The small core cast carry this film throughout and do a terrific job. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a great job as our protagonist, Michelle. Intelligent and independent, Michelle is no mere "damsel in distress" as depicted in horror movies gone by, but a very competent and realistic heroine. Winstead portrays Michelle as a very human character, and the effect of this is two fold. First off, it gives us a protagonist who makes smart choices; not once are we screaming at the screen questioning whether or not she is an idiot or simply incompetent, as we would be if we were watching a cliched horror movie. Secondly, it also means the character is flawed and, therefore, more interesting to watch on screen. She goes through a real character arc and growth throughout the story that is akin to Ripley's in the original Alien movie, a film which 10 Cloverfield Lane shares many similarities in plot. Yet, as good as Winstead is, it is John Goodman's turn as Howard which steals the show. I won't say too much, as it's best you go into this film as blind as possible in my opinion, but what I will say is that Goodman gives a performance that will keep you guessing from beginning to end and he is by far the most captivating character to watch on screen.

On a technical level, the film is exceptionally well-made. Shot in a way that constantly makes you feel close to these characters, the way the movie has been filmed helps to accent the bunker's claustrophobic nature, adding to the film's suspense. The practical effects are also fantastic (especially the use of make-up, which added a depth of realism to pivotal moments in the film) and CGI was also used effectively at points. Sound was also used expertly well, from the quiet sounds of the bunker's generator or supposed passing cars above to the loud and shocking shrieks of the opening car crash, sound is used to install both a sense of security and a sense of fear in the film's audience from beginning to end, aiding in setting the tone and keeping the audience guessing.

However, the film's story has clearly been influenced by its studio and branded title, and the plot deteriorates the further the movie progresses. The first act is simply marvellous, introducing us to the leads and the setting in an expert manner and sets the foundation for what could have been a perfect confined thriller. Yet, the film plays its hand too quickly, and the rest of the film is lesser in quality because of this. A new mystery emerges in the film's second act which breathes a bit of life back into the story and seems to give us a satisfying conclusion. 

However, it doesn't. 

The film goes on for twenty minutes more than it should, the climax is completely outside of the tone of the rest of the movie and it completely stinks of too much studio involvement and interference. The ending feels shoehorned in and that left me extremely confused as a viewer. There is a natural point where this movie should have come to a conclusion, yet the studio chose to go for shocking finale which, in my opinion, has lessened the final product as a whole.

All in all, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a good film. It features a strong main cast of characters that are interesting to watch, each of whom brings their "A-game" and helps to strengthen the film in their own way. It was well-directed and well-made from every technical standpoint. However, the film's plot becomes too convoluted and tries to make 10 Cloverfield Lane something that it is not. I can only compare the ending to having tomato sauce on ice-cream, as the film's climax feels that out of place and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a good movie, until it leaves you scratching your head and walking out of the theatre dissatisfied.

Score: 7.2/10

Film Review- Mad Max: Fury Road

George Miller's "Mad Max: Fury Road" was one of the most successful movies of 2015. Receiving universal praise from critics the world over and picking up no less than an impressive six Oscars at this year's ceremony. Almost ashamedly, I have to admit I did not find the time to see Fury Road during its theatrical run. However, the film has now made its way on to the Sky Movies back catalogue and so, PJs still on and a cup of tea in hand, I decided to clear time out of my not-so-busy schedule to sit down and see what all the fuss was about. And I have to say that, after finally watching the film, I understand the hype.

From a technical standpoint, Fury Road is a masterpiece. The special effects used in this movie are astounding and an absolute joy to watch play out on screen. I wish I could have seen this movie in 3D in the cinema because, like with The Martian, all of Fury Roads effects are done very tastefully. Nothing feels out of place or overdone. And on that note, I have to acknowledge how well edited this instalment into the Mad Max franchise truly is. From beginning to end, Fury Road is almost always pure, total, nonstop action. Yet, it feels seamless. Margaret Sixel has done such a great job on this movie that it almost feels as though some pretty long sequences could have been filmed in one take. Editors are often unsung heroes in the world of filmmaking yet, on this occasion, Sixel has to take a bow for her marvellous work in the cutting room. Simply put, the post-production work done on Fury Road largely contributed to how good this film turned out. 

In saying this, more than any one single defining element, what makes Fury Road a really great film is its identity and vision, something that 71 year old director George Miller has to receive plaudits for. Exactly thirty years after releasing the last instalment in this franchise, Miller has brought to this production an ambition and a clear direction which makes it stand out. Everything about it is unique, from the costume and production design to the makeup to the characterisation of the lead roles, Miller has created a cinematic work of art with Fury Road by building a truly unique and bizarre world and bringing together a crew that could help make his vision into a reality. With the modern technology he had at his disposal, Miller has given us what will perhaps be remembered as his best film with Fury Road. 

Yet the film's lack of story is what lets it down a bit for me. It is essentially a two-hour long car chase and, while for some people this might be enough, for me I'd have liked to have seen just a little bit more. The dialogue is fine, the acting is great (particularly Charlize Theron as Furiosa), and the characters don't feel too underdeveloped, but just in terms of plotting I'd have liked to have seen something a bit different than "let's go this way, let's go back". There is a reason that the film's screenplay was not nearly acknowledged as much as its other elements. In saying this, if your in the mood for a mindless popcorn action flick, Mad Max: Fury Road is the film for you.

Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road is a fun movie. It is an extremely well-crafted action flick and was extremely deserving of all the technical achievement wins it picked up during the awards season. George Miller's singular vision has given us what is, with no doubt in my mind, the best action movie of the decade thus far. The acting is done well, and I would go as far to say that Furiosa is the strongest female protagonist we have seen in any action film since Sigourney Weaver's turn as Ripley in "Aliens". The film's only downside is its simplistic plot, which in my mind has prevented this great movie from becoming an amazing film. All in all, Fury Road was well worth the watch. What a lovely day.

Score: 8.5/10

Film Review- Hail, Caesar!

As a moviegoer, I have a very complicated relationship with The Coen Brothers. This Oscar winning duo from St Louis Park, Minnesota are two people you cannot accuse of being by-the-grain, having been responsible for making some of the most quirky flicks of the past thirty years. Their films are famed for their impressive cinematography and very particular styles, and there can be no question that they have earned the right to call themselves two of the finest directors of the modern era. However, from a personal standpoint, I have never been a huge fan. While there are some parts of their filmography which I do enjoy (The Big Labowski for example), for the most part I have not enjoyed watching their movies. In particular, I found "No Country For Old Men" to be dull and lifeless, while "Burn After Reading" could very well be my least favourite film of all time. For this reason, I couldn't help but go into the brother's latest effort, "Hail, Caesar!", a tad apprehensive. However, as it turns out, I was pleasantly surprised. 

The film revolves around a day in the life of Eddie Maddox (Josh Brolin), the resident fixer at one of the top Hollywood studios in the 1950's. Eddie's day takes a turn for the worse when the studio's top star, Baird Whitlock (played by Amal Clooney's husband, George) is kidnapped by a group of mild-mannered communists, who are also screenwriters. If that wasn't weird enough, along the way Maddox must deal with the demands of an uptight English director, a dim-witted western star, a demanding actress, and twin gossip columnists who wish to expose Whitlock for the womanising drunk that he really is. I think this leads in nicely to the first thing I loved about this film.

This movie is absolutely bonkers. 

The first straight up comedy the brothers have done in a while, the plot of Hail Caesar is absolutely wild. Every character is so over-the-top that each that every single one of them have their moments to shine in this picture, regardless of how much screen-time they receive. The dialogue is so well-written, and demonstrates the Coen's timeless ability to "write stupidly" in the most intelligent way possible. From the same token, it is the film's underlying method in all this madness that makes this all work. While on paper "Burn After Reading" could be seen to share many similarities with Hail Caesar, the major difference is that Burn After Reading's plot was incohesive and pointless. Hail Caesar, on the other hand, is a story with stakes and problems and conflict to overcome. Burn After Reading was essentially a film about nothing, Hail Caesar has a central story binding all of the madness together. Hail Caesar, on top of being well-written, well-acted and well-shot, is a story with a strong central narrative, and that helps to make all the difference here.

However, Hail Caesar's main strength is how absolutely gorgeous it looks on the big-screen. The production design is fantastic, the filmmakers having created a multitude of large and beautiful set pieces for this film which may as well have been plucked right out of 1950's Hollywood as they look absolutely stunning. The film's costumes are also great, and with the vast spectrum of outfits needed for this production, that can't have been an easy feet. Credit has to go to costume designer Mary Zophres (who will also serve as costume designer on Damien Chazelle's "La La Land", a film which I am extremely excited about) for that. Yet, the film's greatest asset is legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins. A man who has worked on more classic films than I've had hot dinners, Deakins is clearly having fun with this latest effort. Each and every frame looks incredible, even more impressive considering how many classic cinematic styles he is required to imitate at different points during this production. All-in-all, Hail Caesar gets a massive thumbs up in all technical areas from me.

Yet, as with everything, the film does have its pitfalls. There are times when the film does veer from its central story for too long, which in turn affects how much the audience can truly invest in the plot unfolding onscreen. Also, without spoiling anything, the conclusion of the story involving the screenwriting communists also involves a small dog and a submarine. It's perhaps just a tad too odd. Most of the film is rooted in the grounds of some sort of warped reality, however near the film's end there is a moment where to ask the audience to suspend their disbelief would just be plain ridiculous and it is a shame that there wasn't a more satisfying ending to this particular strand of the plot. I also have to acknowledge that I went to see this movie with a friend who called it "one of the worst films he had seen in the past few years" and fell asleep for a good ten minutes stretch halfway through, once again demonstrating that The Coen Brothers are very much the marmite of modern cinema. 

Overall, I enjoyed Hail Caesar very much. It was entertaining, goofy, witty and visually stunning all in equal measure. The acting was very strong (particularly from Josh Brolin who holds the film together as our straight talking fixer) and it is exceptionally well-written. On top of all this, Hail Caesar is hilarious in its best moments. There is a scene involving a Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Protestant Minister and an Orthodox Presbyter that is easily one of the funniest I have seen in a long time. However, I recognise that it will not be everyone's cup of tea and I would recommend going into this expecting oddball, goofy fun. That way, you will get more enjoyment out of it. All things considered, I'd call this comedy a job well done.

Score: 8.2/10

Film Review- Spotlight

A good movie can make you feel something while watching it. A great movie can make you feel something both while watching it and after leaving the theatre. In other words, a great movie can leave a lasting impression. Spotlight is a great movie. Directed by Tom McCarthy, it recounts the real-life story of the "Spotlight" department of the Boston Globe newspaper who are instructed by their newly appointed editor to investigate suspected child-sex crimes committed by Catholic priests. The movie won Best Picture at last weeks Oscars ceremony, as well as picking up the award for Best Original Screenplay. It has also received widespread critically acclaim. This success is 100 per cent warranted. Quite frankly, from a storytelling perspective, Spotlight blew me away.

The problem with most films that are based on a true story is that, nine times out of ten, they will overdramatise it to the point where it doesn't feel real anymore. The impact is lessened because you can tell you are watching a movie. With Spotlight, that is not the case. It plays like a documentary, a style that may not have worked for lesser projects. However, it works here, purely because of the disturbing nature of the subject matter and it's extremely strong script. Spotlight is an incredibly well-written movie. The pacing is slow and controlled, carefully and gradually building tension throughout, while the dialogue reads extremely naturally. Yet the scripts key strength is that it doesn't over-sensationalise it's characters. It depicts the journalists of the Spotlight team as what they are: journalists. Not once does it try to make them out to be heroes or all-conquering defenders of righteousness, but instead opts to present them as human-beings doing their jobs and they are all the more relatable for it. Their disgust is your disgust; their revulsion is your revulsion. From a writing standpoint, Spotlight is impeccable. 

Spotlight's other strength lies in its amazing acting. Each member of the all-star cast (which includes Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, Stanley Tucci and the extremely underrated Brian d'Arcy James) are incredibly well-suited in their roles. Like I said before, you don't feel that you are watching actors on a screen, but rather journalists going about their jobs as each performance is so very much restrained, so held back, so rooted in the grounds of reality that it becomes a seminar is nuanced acting. Spotlight truly is an ensemble piece and every member of the cast meshes together so well, however if I was forced to pick a standout it would be Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo proves himself to be a versatile character actor here, changing his voice and mannerisms to suit this character and sticking with it from beginning to end without faltering. The most passionate and outspoken member of the Spotlight team, Ruffalo's Michael Rezendes could also be considered the metaphorical voice of the audience watching the movie in the cinema. There is a fantastic scene in the film's final act where Rezendes lets loose all of his frustrations regarding the investigation, and it is so believable because he is verbalising what each and every single one of us watching the movie are thinking and feeling in that moment. Mark Ruffalo is a great "every-man" type actor, and he demonstrates it to no end with his dedicated performance here. However, there is a reason that the cast as an ensemble won more awards than they did as individual actors, as they are better as a whole than they are as individual performances, and I mean that in the most positive sense.

To be frank, I don't have many problems with this film at all. For me personally, it's one of the best dramas I've seen in the past five years and had me glued to the screen from beginning to end. In saying this, I have heard some people say they found the subject matter to be too heavy and the way the film handles it to be too direct and blunt. However, what some people call direct and blunt, I call honest and true. Members of the Catholic Church itself have come out in support of this film for not pussyfooting around the issues that plagued its diocese in Boston at this time. To have watered-down this story would have been disrespectful to the victims depicted in it and also against the message of accountability and facing issues head-on instead of sweeping them under the rug that the film is trying to put across. Spotlight is not a fun movie, but it is a movie that will captivate you from beginning to end and have you leaving the theatre knowing that you have seen a truly honest and well put together film.

Overall, Spotlight left me stunned. It was cinema at its best: well acted, well written and a story that made you fill up with emotion and challenges your world views at the same time. It's a warning of what can happen when you let an organisation become greater than the law. It challenges us to look ourselves in the eye, and look to see if there are injustices that we have cast a blind eye over in our own lives. Yes, Spotlight isn't a cinematically beautiful film like The Revenant. Nor is a happy go lucky feel-good movie. But Spotlight is an immensely powerful and well acted story, and the type of thing I hope we see more of this type of film hitting the big-screens as we enter 2016..

Score: 9.0/10