Post-Viewing: Batman v Superman and the biggest problem plaguing modern superhero films

Batman v Superman is as I put it: “one of the most incoherent, inconsequential and incomprehensible messes ever put onto the big screen”; but how could this have happened? The answer is pretty obvious and it’s arguably the most dangerous trap for any superhero film to fall into nowadays. Be warned as I'll be spoiling this plot rotten throughout.

Of course I’m talking about the intense cinematic rivalry that has raged for years between DC and its biggest rival Marvel. 2012’s The Avengers was a hit, the highest grossing film that year and whenever a film achieves that kind of success, the competing studios all react in some way. Rather than taking notes, DC instead chose to take the easy route and dive straight into the ensemble film first. Every studio wants to turn a profit from the films they produce, but what separates Marvel from DC is the way they treat their characters and the cinematic universe as a whole. By giving Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk and Thor their own films first, we got to know the characters, understood what sets them apart and we were able to follow all of them together more easily when the ensemble film finally came out. Not only that, but the films had a great sense of build-up which still continues to this day. The anticipation has more momentum and we look forward to the next big film, mostly notably Infinity War. DC has chosen to almost entirely disregard all of these tried and true techniques. They're so concerned about getting this universe set up that they forget to make compelling films that stand on their own.

Batman is the best part of the movie, but you know what would have made him even better? A standalone film showing his degeneration from hero to vigilante; just imagine the kinds of emotions Affleck could have gotten across with the loss of Robin and the amount of time he has spent fighting crime. It would have made his character far more detailed and realised for the big ensemble. Instead what we get is a plot which skips over much of this backstory in favour of setting up the Justice League movie; it’s such a shame how DC cares so little about developing its characters. The most glaring example of this is the congressional hearing scene which Superman attends to answer for the destruction he caused in Man of Steel. Rather than having an interesting conversation to develop and question Superman’s God-like image, the meeting quite literally explodes and we’re right back to focusing on the Justice League setup again; it’s a middle finger to character building in every way.

The overzealous promotional material certainly didn’t help either; the second to last trailer for Batman v Superman blatantly spoiled the film’s big twist; that Doomsday was in the movie and that the two titular heroes wouldn’t really have much of a fight at all. Instead it was a series of squabbles before the final battle which sees the two teaming up with Wonder Woman to take on Doomsday. The trailer was placed into as many cinemas as possible and to me it reeks of desperation; that final shot of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman in the frame was designed solely to get people in the seats, nothing else and any surprises the film could have had were neutered as a result. When a film handles its promotion and construction with a disregard for its audience, it loses a lot of impact. According to several media sources, BVS needs to make one billion dollars to be considered a success and it has fallen fairly short of that target after a record sales drop of 69% in its second weekend; in another desperate move, Warner Bros is now considering an R rated cut to be released in cinemas later.

Why did Snyder and company chuck Doomsday in? Because Wonder Woman would literally have no reason to be there; she doesn’t hold a grudge against Batman or Superman and would have been relegated to a side role without any kind of on-screen action, either that or she would have suddenly showed up at the end to break up the squabbling. Again this comes back to the idea of developing a universe slowly before diving into the ensemble film; having a standalone Wonder Woman film in place would have really helped us to latch on to her character, to understand what she went through before getting to this epic battle. Instead the final battle of Batman v Superman is so forced and tacked on that it comes off as an anti-climax. Rather than feeling enthralled, I felt indifferent to the action in BVS’s final moments because there was hardly any build-up or development to it.

That’s what I can say for many moments in the film; Wonder Woman was not developed at all so again I felt nothing when she arrived to lend a hand in the final battle. When Superman “died” I just didn’t care, because his character and relationship with Lois Lane had barely been given any time to grow on me. A movie of this scale is supposed to be thrilling; it’s supposed to send chills down your spine as you watch the intensity play out but instead it comes off as incredibly muted. I should have been gripping my seat wondering how things would play out but I just couldn't; that's where the movie fails the most. There’s even a moment where The Flash appears out of nowhere to warn Batman of something and it was so brief that it literally went right over my head while watching. This is precisely what happens when you jump headlong into an ensemble film without crafting your characters and the world they inhabit beforehand. Combine this with the aforementioned marketing problems and you have a film with nearly all the thrills sucked out before you even see it.

Batman v Superman has been developed in a pressure cooker over the past three years; it’s one of the more expensive superhero films produced and for DC it’s a mad dash to get the profits first. To do that, they needed to up the stakes so therefore they jammed in every last plot thread and character they could and expected them to work well together. This is something that Spiderman 3, The Amazing Spiderman 2 and Fant4stic were all guilty of to varying extents and they were dragged down in the eyes of many audiences. If DC wants to go the dark route, fair enough; it sets them apart from Marvel. If they want to make a big cinematic universe to compete with their biggest rival, fine. But the way they’re going about it right now is very ill advised.

(All images labelled for reuse)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Review

Released: March 25th 2016 (Worldwide)

Length: 151 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Zack Snyder

Starring: Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, Jessie Eisenberg, Gal Gadot, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne and Holly Hunter.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has received a massive amount of anticipation and features some of the biggest names in comic book history. But for the first phase in a planned franchise, the film is an enormous disappointment and a textbook example of how NOT to construct a cinematic universe.

BVS picks up several months after Man of Steel in which Superman (Henry Cavill) took on General Zod (Michael Shannon) in a battle which destroyed a sizeable portion of Metropolis. Batman (Ben Affleck), who was also present on the ground watches helplessly as his employees in Wayne Tower are killed in the ensuing chaos and begins to hold an animosity towards the superhero. In the midst of this growing controversy, Lex Luthor (Jessie Eisenburg) hatches a devilish scheme to trick the two vigilantes into fighting each other and so begins DC’s crackpot scheme to begin their own cinematic universe. The one good thing I can say about the plot is that the opening act does give some context to the destruction seen in the closing third of Man of Steel (even if it never follows through with it). Other than that, it’s an absolute mess; bouncing between numerous scenes, intrusive dream sequences and random locations at a constantly nauseating rate, BVS can never tell a cohesive story effectively. The film bungles so many important moments, and shoehorns in so much unnecessary filler that should have been kept back for other films. Every half an hour or so, a scene comes out of nowhere which is so obviously signposted to set up the Justice League that it distracts from the already convoluted proceedings. Often times you’ll have no idea what’s going on in these scenes because again, there’s no development to be found and at other points you’ll wonder if you’re watching two films squeezed and jammed into one. Dare I say it; the plot of BVS could be the most confused and cluttered plot ever devised for a superhero movie.

The characters of Batman v Superman are very poorly developed and the film suffers greatly for it. The needle in the quality haystack is Ben Affleck who makes for a great Batman; contrary to all the naysayers, he encapsulates the more grizzled and weary Caped Crusader with ease and you can sense that he’s been through hell in his crime fighting career which has spanned over twenty years. At the same time though, a big chunk of his backstory feels missing; after a very brief retelling of his origins the film chucks us straight into the action alongside the equally well portrayed Alfred (Jeremy Irons), expecting audiences to be familiar with this version of the character from the outset. Batman is well acted in this movie but you won’t be as attached as you could be. Regretfully, Affleck and Irons are the only solid performances to be found here; the rest are either too basic or wasted opportunities. Henry Cavill is neglected the most here as Superman; aside from a couple of reflective moments his character does little to progress and his character arc (which would have made for good continuity with Man of Steel) quickly gets tossed out the window in favour of the action. Gal Gadot gives a serviceable opening performance as Wonder Woman but her appearance is severely limited by the amount of screen time she’s given. Where Gal Gadot’s presence is basic and minimalistic, Jesse Eisenberg’s is painfully annoying. Forgive the informality but to put it bluntly; this guy sucks. He has no threatening presence whatsoever; his quips are a complete turn-off and every time he opened his mouth, I just wanted to block my ears. It’s such a flawed vision for the character and one which I hope won’t stick around for future films. Because of the film’s insistence on straightforward action, characters that have flanked comic book pages for decades are almost completely bare-bones. The same holds for true for Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and Editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) who are all sidelined for this entry.

Taking its gloomy and dark style from Man of Steel, Batman v Superman is most definitely a sight to behold; dazzling effects, a foreboding atmosphere and strong editing all coalesce to bring us another eye-popping spectacle. This time around the highlights come from Batman, whose fight scenes are both impactful and well-choreographed; the soundtrack is suitably sweeping and conveys an epic tone which is unmatched by the film’s other components. Snyder’s cinematic flair carries over from 300 and Watchmen with a wide array of camera shots to give varying views of the action. There’s never a moment where the action sequences become as incompetent as the plot and characters. As was the case with its predecessor, Batman v Superman is very flashy but without any sort of context, it all becomes so meaningless, unable to land the impact it intends to make on the audience.

Batfleck is brilliant and it definitely looks pretty, but in a desperate bid to kick-start the Justice League, Snyder and Warner Bros have made a critical mistake. Batman v Superman really is one of the most incoherent, inconsequential and incomprehensible messes ever put onto the big screen and it all comes down to a misguided company who places financial gain ahead of artistic vision.

Rating: 1.5/5 Stars

Post-Viewing: Why 10 Cloverfield Lane is a masterclass in creating suspense and tension

10 Cloverfield Lane has recently been released; it has planted itself into the attentions of cinema goers in a fairly abrupt manner and has since received a very strong critical reception. What’s interesting about the film is its place in the field of suspense. With a 12A rating here in the UK, the film is accessible to a fairly wide audience; the violence and foul language is kept fairly low, it isn’t classed as a horror film and yet it stands as one of the most intense films of 2016 so far. How does it create such nail-biting suspense?

The franchise has an interesting advertising formula; both Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane have made a point of concealing themselves from the prying eyes of film going audiences and the leak-happy sources of the internet. They expect audiences to go in while knowing as little as possible and this ensures that the tension lands with a deep impact. The original 2008 film started off with the casting which was done in secret, with no scripts being sent out to any candidates; this got each actor and actress in the right mind-set for a chaotic debut film where no one really knows what is happening. The two films both made use of viral marketing campaigns from secretive websites to an alternate reality game, all the while keeping the overall mystery of their narratives intact. Eye-catching taglines like “Something has found us” and “Monsters come in many forms” both work brilliantly to entice audiences. We want to unravel the film’s mysteries and for the most part, this happens gradually as the revelations come to light.

If there’s one keyword I would associate with the two films, it’s “Unknown”. The characters are caught unawares and so are we. That nervousness and fear of what we don’t know or understand is often a key element in building scares and tensions and where most full-on horror films have forgotten about this entirely, the franchise, along with contemporaries such as Super 8 possess a level of pacing and suspense that are often unmatched. Knowing as little as possible before going to see it upped the film’s impact tremendously for me, something which I would highly recommend to anyone who checks it out.

It could be speculated that the Cloverfeld franchise may become an anthology series which uses a different set of characters and filming techniques, but shares a common universe. This method of universe building hasn’t really been done since George Romero’s Dead series which ran from Night of the Living Dead in the sixties all the way through to Survival of the Dead in the late 2000s. The result could be a very unique style which if done right, could keep audiences guessing. Either way, 10 Cloverfield Lane deserves to be successful and I hope the franchise as a whole continues further.

10 Cloverfield Lane Movie Review

Released: March 18^th 2016 (UK)

Length: 103 minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher.

As the spiritual successor or “blood relative” to 2008’s surprise hit, 10 Cloverfield Lane returns the franchise to the big screen. It makes use of a vastly different focus but the results are every bit as nail-biting and well produced as they were eight years ago.

From the outset, 10 CL preserves a cryptic tone as we’re deposited right into the perspective of Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who is heading to an undisclosed location. After getting into a deadly road accident, Michelle awakens in an underground bunker under the care of Howard Stambler (John Goodman) and fellow resident Emmet Dewitt (John Gallagher). Stambler informs her that the surface is now uninhabitable, the air having been poisoned by a hostile force. Is it a biological weapon or a nuclear strike? Nobody knows and just as the central protagonist is subjected to the mystery, so too is the audience and that’s what makes the film so enticing. Where the original Cloverfield relied mostly on the pure, unadulterated chaos of a giant monster, here the threat turns inwards with precision, both physically with the claustrophobic setting and psychologically with the sparring between characters. Things gradually become more and more uneasy as Michelle’s suspicions rise and the film keeps a constant concentration on this single plot thread; with no interruptions or side notes to keep track of, 10 Cloverfield Lane maintains an unyielding grip on the rising tensions as the truths emerge from the shadows in an exhilarating climax. It’s a tightly compressed and unwavering narrative all the way through.

The film has a tiny cast, but all three actors inject an exquisite amount of detail into their roles. Taking place almost entirely within the bunker, the three characters give some personal insight into their backstories and all have their own personal traits. Michelle is placed under a great deal of stress, but she’s far from helpless and her sheer resourcefulness and will power compels the audience to care for her character. John Goodman is also excellent as Howard; saying too much about his performance would risk spoiling things, but know that he seamlessly captures the feel of a “fractured” man. Lastly there’s John Gallagher as Emmet who honestly feels like a side attraction when compared to the other two. He still receives plenty of development, but feels a little pedestrian as a result.

The basic setting gives way to a simplistic framing that keeps the action where it should be; on the characters. Close and medium shots are used sparingly to get across the emotions on the three characters, particularly the apprehension shown by Michelle and Emmet. The soundtrack by Bear Mccreary is a very important part of the presentation in that it carries an immense irony, being split into two categories; classical tracks such as “I think we’re alone now” and “Tell him” seem to carry an upbeat and cheerful mood, which stands at a stark contrast to the predicament of remaining underground. On the other hand we have foreboding, almost sinister tracks which add to the film’s grand enigmas, drawing the viewer in even deeper. The nervous atmosphere crafted here is both palpable and omnipresent.

10 Cloverfield Lane is tense, uncomfortably tense; it rips the franchise out of its long hiatus and slithers back into theatres with a sly and extremely capable composition. The standout performances are worthwhile enough but the fact that it’s another fantastic contribution to the Cloverfield franchise makes it even more inviting. Be prepared for powerful thrills you won’t find anywhere else this year.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars

House of Cards Series Review (Season 4)

Released: March 4th 2016 (All episodes at once)

Created by: Beau Willimon

Number of episodes: 13

Where to watch: Netflix

Starring: Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Michael Kelly, Nathan Darrow, Jayne Atkinson, Molly Parker, Neve Campbell, Mahershala Ali, Derek Cecil, Lars Mikkelsen, and Joel Kinnaman.

For the fourth time, we’re reminded that absolute power corrupts as the politically charged House of Cards returns. It’s a substantial and gracious improvement over the rather muted season 3.

Things were starting to turn sour for Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) at the end of the last season; despite everything he has accomplished and all the opponents he has removed, the immense power he wields still carries a heavy price. Setting his sights on a second term in office, Frank must contend with the press breathing down his neck and the possibility of rebellion on all fronts; even his wife Claire (Robin Wright) appears to have had enough and has set up her own counter campaign as a result of his actions. Older characters make reappearances while new players enter the scene in the run-up to Election Day, most notably Joel Kinnaman’s William Conway, the Republican nominee and Frank’s toughest competition yet. Despite his seemingly positive exterior and loving family, Conway is just as calculating in the power game and the ways he plays off Underwood are both intense and engrossing. As opposed to feeling like busy work, the plot is highly unpredictable, perhaps more so than any of its predecessors which mostly comes through the incorporation of further themes and issues that tie in with reality. Surveillance, gun control and extremism all play major roles, melding with the characters in a way that ensures the series maintains its grounded, pseudo-authentic feel.

Season 4 also brings back many characteristics that were conspicuously absent last year. The fourth wall breaking monologues are back, and they’re far more savvy and charismatic than ever before, pulling you back into Frank’s character like nothing else can. He handles most situations with a sneer on his face, yet he maintains his calm and smug demeanour whenever he addresses the audience. Spacey’s portrayal remains one of the most brazen and steadfast performances ever to grace the small screen. He is matched once again by Robin Wright, who flexes her political muscles on a far greater scale; but in turn, a more emotional side to the first lady emerges to add another layer of depth to her character. Doug Stamper (Michael Kelly), having cast out his personal demons completely is more ruthless than ever as Underwood’s chief of staff; truly no one dares to cross him this time around which further conveys the sheer pragmatism of the administration. This kind of attitude serves to craft a dire situation for the other members under Frank’s presidency, especially for the likes of press secretary Seth Grayson (Derek Cecill) and Secretary of State Catherine Durant (Jayne Atkinson) who tussle with the media and diplomatic relations respectively. With not a single weak cast member in sight, the pieces all fall into place. If there’s one issue with the characters, it’s that the sheer number of them can make things a little unbalanced at times; there are several episodes where some characters receive a greater amount of attention while others don’t appear at all. With so many individual arcs at play, it can become a bit tricky to keep track of everyone at times.

House of Cards is back on form in a big way with season 4; the plot has repossessed its urgency and the characters have more variation and criticality in their motives. Aside from running into a bit of trouble when juggling many characters across the season, it is an undeniably superb effort that will pull you back in.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars

The Man in the High Castle Series Review

Released: January 15th 2015

Created by: Frank Spotnitz

Number of episodes: 10 in Season 1

Where to watch: Amazon Prime

Starring: Alexa Davalos, Rupert Evans, Luke Kleintank, DJ Qualls, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and Rufus Sewell.

The Man in the High Castle is the newest piece of entertainment media to enter the “What if the allies had lost World War II?” camp, joining contemporaries such as Wolfenstein: The New Order and Fatherland in this often grim, yet intriguing scenario.

Based on the book of the same name by Phillip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle takes place in 1960. The allied powers lost World War II after the Nazis dropped an atomic bomb on Washington and the nation is now divided between the Reich in the east and the Japanese Empire in the West with a neutral buffer zone placed in-between the two. In the midst of this diverged world, Juliana Crane (Alexa Davalos) and her boyfriend Frank Fink (Rupert Evans) are trying their best to scrape a living when she comes across an interesting film. It presents a hopeful outlook, an image of the Allies triumphing over the Axis powers and Crane begins to believe that in the right hands, the films could bring a crippling blow to the current occupants. She also comes across Joe Blake (Luke Kleintank) from the East, a mild-mannered factory worker who is certainly more than meets the eye. A web of secrets, tensions and intrigue is built up over the course of ten episodes in which each character maintains their own motivations and individual positions. As things push on, the series expands beyond Juliana and Joe with political manoeuvres coming into play between German and Japanese officials; these are personified with the highly ranked Obergruppenführer John Smith (Rufus Sewell) and Trade Minister Nobusuke Tagomi (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa). They add a great sense of intrigue to the overall plot while also giving it much of its twists and turns. Occasionally there will be moments of tension, or frightful moments where the brutality of the regimes comes into play but for the most part, The Man in the High Castle keeps the focus on the political and societal shifting caused by both sides and the coveted films caught in the middle of it.

The main characters all feel very authentic with key components of both the Nazis and Japanese being vividly captured by the cast. Trade Minister Tagomi along with most of his collaborators has a fascinating code of honour, contrasting heavily with the ruthless attitude of the Nazi officials. Davalos, Evans and Kleintank are all equally solid as the three main leads; their emotive sides really come into their own in the latter half of the season as things grow more and more desperate. Despite the main performances being very strong, some of the side characters make small appearances then disappear completely before we can learn more about them. The prime example of this is The Marshall (played by Burn Gorman of Game of Thrones fame) who misses an opportunity to shed more light on the neutral zone. With a story that draws its audience into an alternate history, there is some disappointment to be found when it comes to learning more about individual locations and some of the characters contained therein.

The world created in “The Man in the High Castle” reflects the subdued nature of the setting; it appears peaceful and resolute in the face of nationwide occupation but reveals its true colours when you dig down beneath the surface. Swastikas and Empire flags hang all over city centres, a stiff reminder to the people of their oppressive masters. There’s often a long shot or two that establishes what settlements such as San Francisco, New York and Berlin look like under Axis rule, before quickly hurling the viewer into the dark realities of the setting; later in the season, one particularly loathsome character relays hints as to what the Nazis did to Europe and the continent of Africa, leaving it to our imagination. Costume work is just as authentic with the performances, a mix of formal wear and relatively simplistic clothing. On a visual level, The Man in the High Castle brilliantly captures the tone and style of the source material.

Aside from a couple of characters and settings that could have been fleshed out more, “The Man in the High Castle” is an enticing offering and easily the best original work put out by Amazon Studios so far. It’s well worth a watch if you’re into history, alternate or otherwise.

Rating: 4/5 Stars

Grimsby Movie Review

Released: 24th February 2016

Length: 83 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Louis Leterrier

Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Strong, Rebel Wilson, Penelope Cruz, Ian Mcshane, Isla Fisher, and Annabelle Wallis

Grimsby (Also known as The Brothers Grimsby in the United States) is the latest in a long line of rude and crude comedy films from Sacha Baron Cohen; a mildly entertaining diversion that doesn’t do much to excel in any major way.

Grimsby follows Norman “Nobby” Butcher (Sacha Baron Cohen, a wild at heart British northerner who stumbles across his long lost brother Sebastian (Mark Strong) who just so happens to be a secret agent for MI6. After Nobby screws up one of Sebastian’s missions, the duo is placed on the run as they must uncover a secret plot and clear their names. The plot is a litter of predictability mixed with conveniences that really take all the thought and cleverness out of the film’s sails. For example after one particularly excruciating scene involving poison darts, our characters find (in the exact same room no less) a large crate that will take them to the next location which happens to be in place for the plot to rumble on. If we already know what will occur it’s often easy to see some of the jokes coming, and most of them are repetitive innuendos which wear out their welcome quickly.

Grimsby’s characters fall back on common archetypes to engage the audience, most notably the no-nonsense superspy mixed with the clumsy, idiotic sidekick; they’re relatively simplistic and do play off each other well. The bond between the two brothers is expressed through several flashbacks but these don’t give much in the way of emotional involvement; the film instead chooses to focus almost entirely on the comedy which leads to a lack of balance that plagues the proceedings. Really though, Grimsby doesn’t concern itself with its characters and this is clearly evident with the minuscule roles given to Ian McShane and Penelope Cruz. It feels like they were thrown in to give the film a bit more marquee value and they don’t contribute to the comedy in any way whatsoever. The film also has a wide array of cultural references but unlike Deadpool where almost every one of these was placed and delivered brilliantly, here it feels like they were thrown in as an afterthought.

The presentational effects that comprise Grimsby’s action sequences could be better; the editing is too frantic with dozens upon dozens of cuts thrown at the audience with reckless abandon in a desperate attempt to heighten the tension. They also make liberal use of the first person camera which isn’t all that original or inventive. Coming off as pretty lacklustre, the film instead falls back on its satirical take on hooliganism which is at best, capably amusing. The soundtrack also has a strong authenticity to it, using several British tracks from the past decade or so to convey the characteristics of Nobby’s lot fairly well.

Grimsby is one of those films which will quietly pass through without much attention and rightfully so. It’s good for a few laughs but that’s where the positives end. There’s little to see here that you won’t find in any other film from Cohen. I strongly suggest tempering your expectations if you’re expecting something worth putting up your time and money to see.

Rating: 2/5 Stars