Batman V Superman

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Warner Bros.
Pictures, the film
publisher or graphic
artist.)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, RatPac Entertainment, Atlas Entertainment and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter and Gal Gadot
Released: March 25 2016
Running Time: 151 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

“The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world. God versus man. Day versus night. Son of Krypton versus Bat of Gotham.” - Lex Luther

It's not Batman vs Superman. It's Batman V Superman. Because having the ‘v’ instead of ‘vs’ is a way ‘to keep it from being a straight “versus” movie, even in the most subtle way.’ According to the director Zack Snyder.

So what does this mean, despite the fact that Lex literally says ‘versus’ several times in the movie? Wait, does this mean we aren't going to see Batman and Superman beat on each other for 151 minutes?! Well, despite what all the excellent marketing we've been hit with might suggest, no we're not. But that was obvious because this is Superman, the character who originally started superhero movies with Christopher Reeve, against Batman, the character who gave superhero movies credibility under Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy. The sell isn't their great battle or the "who will win?" outcome. These guys are the heroes. The selling point of the film is seeing two hugely iconic characters sharing the big screen for the first time.

It also cannot be a straight “versus” movie because, as almost everyone tells me before seeing the film, Superman is an unstoppable force and Batman is just a billionaire genius (conveniently forgetting that Superman's biggest foe is Lex Luther, who is a billionaire genius). How could Batman stand a chance?! Well, I'll forgo divulging the times Batman has defeated Superman in their comic book forms for now and concentrate on what we have here, which is the first true chapter of the DC Comics cinematic universe.

Because cinematic universes are a thing now. Because Marvel and Warner Bros. have trusted the vision of their universe with Zack Snyder. And what vision Snyder has. Quite a polarising director, Snyder has as many critics as fans due to his vivid style. While it is great for his movies to have a look and a feel that makes a Snyder film instantly recognisable, some argue that it is not fitting for every story he produces.

But it works well here. Better than it did in Man of Steel where Snyder's naturally vivid style seemed at odds with producer Christopher Nolan's natural, gritty look. Unlike Nolan, Snyder is really allowed to make a Batman V Superman comic book movie with more emphasis on the comic book and less on the movie.

And it is filmed very much like a comic book; the scenes can be short and cut between each other in a way that is sharp and rushed. In fact, for adult fans of comic books, this movie should be perfect. More complex and adult notions of what drives Batman and what Superman's place in the world is are explored, but unlike the Nolan films, the other worldly element Superman brings means that the movie can take leaps of reality. Though it means that characters make some questionable decisions (would people really just stroll through a cloud of dust from a destroyed building?), it also allows us to accept Wonder Woman's involvement, and she is an entertaining addition to proceedings.

The problem is that the dialogue also sounds like it is from a comic book. Characters don't really engage with each other, there are no natural conversations, and people mainly just say convoluted things at each other. Everything is metaphorical or anecdotal. Everyone is a philosopher.

The movie also has a hefty run time. Where Marvel used five solo superhero movies to build up to its shared universe team, DC are rushing it somewhat by only giving us glimpses of its entire team here. The several dream/vision sequences are clearly with the bigger picture in mind, but they just expand an already bloated movie, and without serving much narrative which can be very confusing. If you don't have an extensive knowledge of the source, then you'll be left scratching your head at just how odd these scenes are. You'll feel you had a bizarre vision yourself. Think Thor in Avengers Age of Ultron in that electric cave Jacuzzi.

Now, the new guys. Ben Affleck does everything the role calls for adeptly, which is anger. Batman is just really angry. And Superman is stressed. Super stressed. Batman V Superman kind of shows us the absolute worst of the heroes. That said, their action scenes are very well done, although they're a bit of a mess in the climactic battle. Batman, in particular, probably has his best fight scenes in any film; they're fast and brutal, but also clearly show what is happening, which is not how the Nolan fight scenes came out in their finished form. It could be straight from an Arkham computer game.

Gal Godot is a refreshing presence. Different from the other two heroes we've seen done to death in movies, she brings the same exuberance to the role as Wonder Woman does to the action. So much exuberance, in fact, that her arrival in the action changes the previously-sombre score to an up-tempo one. It's bizarre really, like a computer game score; the likes that appear after a cut-scene that basically tell you ‘this is when you fight now’. But it does help her leave her a strong impact, while it also leaves enough mystery left hanging over her character to justify her upcoming solo movie.

And then there's Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther. Obviously going for a modern type of Mark Zuckerberg-esque billionaire instead of the classic suit character we're used to, the new take is refreshingly different, giving Superman a truly opposite foe. Eisenberg looks like he has more fun than anyone in a film ever has. The man ticks and twitches his way through with a borderline lunacy that you can accept his maniacal side enough; his respected billionaire businessman side, less so.

Overall, the movie probably takes itself too seriously, which never really seems to fit the Superman character. The dialogue seems like a first draft and the scenes, with the expanded universe in mind while also introducing so many characters, give the audience an enormous amount of information to digest in the allotted time. But the structure of the movie is excellent, all things considered; the necessary pieces are all there; and the action sequences actually get a lot more build-up than I expected. In fact, the film is so un-Snyder that it's Snyder's best movie. Not the best Batman or Superman movie by any means, but for the average film-goer, at least they are seeing these old characters do something different.

Overall Rating: 7/10 - Respectable

Superman: Man Of Steel

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, Legendary Pictures, Syncopy and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven, Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Christopher Meloni and Russell Crowe
Released: June 14 2013
Running Time: 143 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

Back in 2006, we were introduced to an update of the Richard Donner classic Superman from 1979. This seemed the easy route to take the Superman franchise after the success of Christopher Nolan’s re-imagining of Batman (starting with Batman Begins, 2005). However, the film bombed in the box office and the story was bland and flat. Since 2008, Marvel and Disney have taken over the superhero world with their multi-movie collaboration with the Avengers that has left DC and Warner Bros. very jealous and lagging behind. So, they turned to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer (Blade Trinity, 2003) to revamp Superman and the Justice League. They both wrote the story for Superman: Man Of Steel, while Goyer carried on to write the script. Nolan left to become head producer and employed Zac Snyder (300, 2006) to direct his re-imagination of Superman.

To begin with, this is a major improvement from Superman Returns. However, it is not without its faults. I am personally not a big fan of Snyder; he is a good action director, but when it comes to character development and storytelling, he falls flat on his face. His bigger concern was making the film look good: Snyder said very early into production that this was going to be his most realistic-looking motion picture, as he shot it on film and in native 2D, which in post-production was then converted over to 3D.

Anyway, onto the movie itself. This is not actually the complete re-imagination that some people wanted, as it follows the same story as the comics and the original movie. What differentiates this from its predecessors is the telling of the main story. We get flashbacks to Clark Kent’s (Superman) past, which for me was the most interesting part of the film. The first two acts brilliantly set up the finale, which in turn will ultimately let you down.

You can really feel Nolan’s influence in this story with character development: the story arc with Kevin Costner, who plays Clark's earth father, is brilliant. Clark is torn between wanting to show off his powers to help people, while his father wants him to rein it in as the world just isn’t ready for a superhero yet. This does tie in with certain parts later on in the film which brought about a satisfying conclusion.

So, why does the ending disappoint? Well, the one thing I look for going into a Superman film is the moment when you want to stand up and cheer, which the first two Superman movies both had. Unfortunately, this lacked such a moment. Don’t get me wrong: the action still had some special moments, one example being when he is defending his mother (Diane Lane), but overall the action was one big bang for special effects and noise. Which while watching this on an IMAX screen is undobtedly special, it gets a bit dull upon second viewing.

On the whole, the casting is very good. Henry Cavil (Immortals, 2011) is a good Superman: he mixes the balance of superhero and human very well, and you do care and feel for his character. Amy Adams (American Hustle, 2014) is a step up from the last Lois Lane we were given; however, she isn’t anything special and the chemistry isn’t really there between the two lead characters. Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire) is very good: he has a creepy, dark tone, which is the complete opposite to Superman, and he uses his facial expressions really well.

However, Kevin Costner steals the show as Clark's father. It’s unfortunate that he only really sees an hour of screen time, but when he is on-screen, you are drawn to his presence. The conflict he has with a young Clark Kent is fascinating, and something we had yet to see on the big screen, which is part of the reason why it was the highlight of the film. To see the emotion of not just Superman or Lois Lane but of the two most important people in his life was really refreshing and a nice touch.

The intention with this movie was for Superman to come back with a bang. He has done that, but not in the way many would have hoped. Yes, this is a good film; no, it didn’t re-define Superman or the superhero genre. It did give us a solid base for many more films to come, beginning with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice in March 2016. If you are a fan of Superman, this will appeal to you, but the franchise has yet to reach the levels of Marvel and their introductory movie Iron Man.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

The Dark Knight Rises

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Warner Bros., the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures

Production Companies: Legendary Pictures, DC Entertainment and Syncopy

Director: Christopher Nolan

Producers: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Charles Roven

Scriptwriters: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Morgan Freeman

Released: July 16 2012 (NY) and July 20 2012 (UK & US)

Running Time: 164 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Back in 2003, a little-known director named Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, 2002) began working on the reboot for the Batman franchise that Warner Brothers had been waiting for. At this time, Nolan had only made a couple of feature films, all of which were very low budget; however, they were all well-received at the box office and by critics alike. And so he and David Goyer (Man of Steel, 2013) set about the task of drawing up a new way to tell Batman’s origin story and a new theme for the franchise.

In 2005, Batman Begins was released, and it was a huge success; this was the film that all Batman and comic book fans alike had been waiting for since the dreadful Batman Forever (1998). And after that came arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time with The Dark Knight. The film will forever be remembered for the performance of the late Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain, 2004) as the Joker, rightfully earning himself an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 2009.

So it’s understandable that the announcement of the most recent installment in the franchise was greeted with mass excitement. Before the confirmation of the Dark Knight Rises, the Internet had been awash with speculation about the title, whether Nolan would direct it, and who the villain would be portrayed by. Now, I am reviewing this retrospectively; it has been almost three years since this film was released. I still remember the day I went to see it for the first time: I queued up early, having already pre-booked my tickets online. And, fortunately, the movie lived up to the hype as I shall now explain.

To begin with, the story picks up eight years after the Dark Knight, and it is really interesting to see where the characters are at this point; they are still struggling to cope with the actions and decisions made eight years earlier. Bruce Wayne had become a recluse within his own home, and therefore Batman hadn’t been seen since the death of Harvey Dent/Two Face. However, there is a dark force coming to Gotham in the form of Bane. Batman must come out of retirement to fight the evil Bane and protect his beloved city.

Now, I am not going to give any more of the story away in case you haven’t seen it already. Because this was the final installment, and that this was emphasised by Christopher Nolan from the beginning, fans speculated about whether Batman would live, die or pass on the baton onto someone else. The film is around two hours and forty minutes, which is an awfully long time; yet the movie is so enthralling that the time passes by very quickly; you are so engrossed into the story and the images on-screen. Part of the reason concerns production. Along with the Dark Knight, Nolan decided to film certain scenes in this film in the IMAX format. These scenes look fantastic on the big screen; Nolan is a master of the IMAX camera, and it really helps the movie, especially in the action scenes with the Bat and Tumbler fight complex.

Running concurrently with all the fighting is a very warm story that runs deep through the majority of the characters. The theme of the movie is hope: despite everything that happens in the film, the characters cling onto Batman as hope, and at times even Bruce Wayne looks up to Batman. This movie has to deal with a number of story arcs coming to an end, and occasionally it does seem to be juggling too many plates at once, but they all come to a deserving and worthy end that fans should feel comforted by.

The casting and acting is brilliant. Each actor brings something different to their character. Tom Hardy as Bane was a good choice: Hardy is a method actor, and so he gained around 40 pounds to make sure he was big enough to play Bane. But it is his eyes that steal the show: for the majority of the film, he wears a special breathing mask that covers up everything other than the eyes (which puts a lot of pressure on the scriptwriters to tell the story when you can’t see the lead villain’s mouth). Tom does a fantastic job and, in particular, he deserves a lot of credit for diverting us from the fact that Heath Ledger is not here to play his role, and instead he gives us a completely different and totally believable and threatening villain; a villain that can even stand toe-to-toe with Batman in a fight on a number of occasions.

However, it is Anne Hathaway who steals the show this time around. A lot of fans complained beforehand that she wasn’t good enough to play Selina Kyle and that she wasn’t fit enough for the role. But credit to Anne: she went through six months’ worth of prep in the gym before shooting and closely studied how cats move. She is perfect for the part: she doesn’t allow the suit to overtake her on the screen, and she brings a new look and style to a very well-known character. She is by far the best part of this film.

In addition, the cinematography is absolutely fantastic, and that is all down to Christopher Nolan’s brilliant cinematographer Wally Pfister (Transcendence, 2014). Every shot looks visually stunning on a large canvas, and this allows colours and sound to really fly off the screen.

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises was a fitting conclusion to the greatest comic book trilogy of all-time, and maybe even the greatest trilogy of all-time period. The climax left me feeling satisfied, the action was enjoyable, and the story was interesting from beginning to end. A worthy end to a classic trilogy.

Overall Rating: 9/10 – Outstanding

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: 20th Century Fox, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: 20th Century Fox

Production Companies: Chernin Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Babieka and Volcano Films

Director: Ridley Scott

Producers: Peter Chernin, Ridley Scott, Jenno Topping, Michael Schaefer and Mark Huffam

Scriptwriters: Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steven Zaillian

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver and Sir Ben Kingsley

Released: December 12 2014 (US) and December 26 2014 (UK)

Running Time: 150 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

For a number of years now, I have become less excited each time I hear that Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979; Blade Runner, 1982) is directing a new feature film. His last couple of films have been average at best; for example, Prometheus (2012) had so much promise, and was a film I had been looking forward to as a massive Alien fan. However, it did not live up to expectations; it was not a bad film, but it wasn’t a particularly good one either. I was also let down by Robin Hood (2010), amongst his other recent works.

Which brings us onto his new film, Exodus: Gods and Kings. I felt this was a very cheesy title, probably given to draw in crowds since a film about Moses, God and the Ten Commandments probably wouldn’t be too popular with the average modern-day movie goer. This film is a remake/modern adaptation of the 1958 film ‘The Ten Commandments’ (Cecil. B DeMille), which starred Charles Heston as Moses. This time around, it is Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle) as Moses. Originally, he was wanted as Noah for Darren Aronofsky’s Noah (2014), but ultimately filming schedules clashed and he opted for this biblical epic instead.

To begin with, the casting in this film is a little erratic. The leads are played brilliantly by Bale and Edgerton (Warrior), as you would expect from such experienced actors. However, the performances of the supporting cast are very forgettable, and this includes Sir Ben Kingsley (Shutter Island, Iron Man 3). This is partly down to the script favouring action over story, in my opinion, which in the case of Kingsley just doesn’t do an actor of his ability any good.

Casting has been heavily criticised for this film. I won’t go too much into racial politics and so on, but the idea that all the main characters are played by white American or British actors and that all the slaves were played by black American actors made me feel very uncomfortable. I understand that at the time slavery did exist, but it seems like the movie is trying to hammer this point home, which is slightly unsettling. Ridley Scott has claimed that this film would not be financially viable without white actors, which has led to discussions of whitewashing and structural racism in Hollywood … but we’ll move on.

At 150 minutes, the running time is fine; I didn’t feel the need to keep checking my watch to see how much time had passed. That being said, one could tell that it had been 150 minutes long. The opening scenes are fast-paced and introduce the characters really well. But then the movie becomes less enjoyable: the middle section is really boring and easy to forget, despite being pivotal to the narrative, to the point where I just couldn’t find myself caring about the characters at this point. And some scenes are simply not effective or progress too quickly. For instance, at one point in the film years pass by, and it isn’t explained very well at all. One minute, Moses is meeting a young woman for the first time and flirting with her, but then in the next scene they are married, and just as quickly they then they have a child. I understand about moving the film along, but maybe it would have been a little more interesting to show their love a bit more? Not only was this rushed, but when he leaves to help his people, you should care that he is leaving his family behind, but because of the rushed nature of the marriage and parenthood, I really didn’t care at all. I knew her for fifteen minutes and then she was gone again. How am I meant to feel an attachment to a lady in fifteen minutes?

On-screen, I mean?

The film does pick up steam as it heads towards its climax, as the two lead actors come together again. The plagues of Egypt form the highlight of the movie, in my opinion; on the whole, they are done really well, and whilst some were more disgusting than others, they all make an impact in their own way. That being said, the plagues are done fairly quickly so they perhaps does not hit the audience emotionally in the way that they should. A key problem I do have about this film is when we see the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Now, I am a believer in Christianity and God, but I am a little skeptical on whether Moses really did part the sea. But in this film, I was still hoping to see an incredible CGI effect for this moment that would look fantastic on the big screen, which would make me sit back and go “Wow!” But it didn’t happen. The way that this was handled was really dull and disappointing and, if I hadn’t already read the story of Moses, the chances are that you wouldn’t have even noticed it happening. It looked more like the tide went in and then just came back again a couple of hours later, so this was a big let-down.

To be fair, the CGI is actually really good in this movie. I believed everything that I saw; everything seemed to look realistic enough. I am not generally a fan of 3D films; I feel they are a waste of money and, even when a film is shot in 3D, I still don’t feel the benefit of them. Besides, they give me a headache. So, if you do go to see Exodus, don’t watch it in 3D!

To conclude, the best thing I can say about Exodus: Gods and Kings is that it has been hard to write this review, but only because I had forgotten most of what happened. It does not stand out for me as a 3D film, an action film or a drama. It tries too hard to do one thing that it forgets the basic elements of an interesting story and script. The story of Moses is really interesting; unfortunately, this film’s adaptation of it is not.

Overall Rating: 5/10 – Average