Batman v Superman, Dawn of Justice

There are few Superheroes as iconic as Superman and Batman. To their fans, and the wider community, the combination of these characters not only sharing the big screen but in conflict is (or was) both exciting and terrifying.  Exciting as a premise, and terrifying that it will all go horribly wrong.

But did it?

A few gentle spoilers follow.

The film starts during the epic (and exhaustingly gratuitous) battle between Zod and Superman from Man of Steel.  However, the perspective is that of Bruce Wayne as he desperately attempts to evacuate his employees from a burning Metropolis.   I imagine that a few New Yorkers might find this sequence unsettling as they draw parallels to events fifteen years ago.  Wayne’s opinion of Superman is set as he kneels in the wreckage of Metropolis while two entities battle blithely on in the heavens. I liked this and it gave a degree of redemption to the first film.

This sets the scene for a build-up of conflict between the two. Superman, who through trying to help people is learning that for every positive action there are negative consequences, believes that the ‘Bat’ is a vigilante who acts as if he is above the law and the consequences of his actions.  Batman is cynically assessing this new arrival’s potential to turn the world into ash.

The Superman plotline was interesting. Holly Hunter played a senator who was part of a committee to investigate the collateral damage caused by Superman’s heroics.  Now that he is here does he help, or does he, in fact, make things worse through his intervention? People were killed and maimed in the battle in Metropolis, and the people demand answers. Henry Cavill is a very good Superman, and a worthy successor to Christopher Reeve. He has the compassion, the strength and by god is he a beautiful man. Seriously, he is beautiful.  There was a nice focus on Clark Kent the man and the journalist, and a wonderful reference to the origin of Superman as well which I liked. Clark Kent also gets his own dream sequence (with a nice cameo from Kevin Costner), and it contained all the pathos and emotion that they tried to reach with Bruce Wayne’s dreams but failed.  Cavill also had a nice chemistry with Adams, although the women in this film do steal the scenes a lot. I am more than ok with that.  I did feel that Cavill was a little constrained, though.

Holly Hunter, like the rest of the female cast, did very well in my opinion.  Lois Lane (Amy Adams) was actually an investigative reporter for once, and while she was rescued more than once by her boyfriend, it did not detract from her character or depict her as some sort of damsel in distress. Could we have seen even more depth to the female characters, sure but then we would be heading towards bloat of Hobbit-like proportions?

Gal Gadot as Wonder woman was exceptional, and they set up her movie really well.  She is certainly not second fiddle to either male lead, and I am genuinely excited to see her own film. For all those who were disappointed that the Black Widow did not get her own movie, then this is one to watch out for, and it is well overdue.

The Batman plotline follows Bruce Wayne’s investigation into a mysterious new crime lord and his growing paranoia over Superman. This was more of a slow grind, interposed with several dream sequences playing on Wayne’s fears and neurosis. I didn’t mind these sequences as much and enjoyed their place in the narrative. Zack Snyder, the director, enjoys utilising dream sequences as plot devices, and they worked well for me.

I was one of those that were wary of Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne. I always thought it was a weird argument that he must be a good Batman as he has two academy awards. However, as neither of these were for acting, I never saw the justification for this argument. Although I went into this film trying to be as open-minded as possible, I thought he would be the weak link in this movie. I was wrong. 

While Affleck was an average Batman, he certainly wasn’t the worst I have seen (not as good as Lego Batman, but not as bad as Clooney).  His portrayal was of an older, wearier Batman, cynical that after 20 years fighting crime, his world is as grim as it always has been.

I think one element that was missing was a depiction of Batman’s genius, Batman is many things but his brain is his greatest weapon.  He also was missing a degree of humanity. For me, Batman is a dark, even brutal hero. However, he has a strong personal code, and despite being a physically superior, billionaire, genius, he is also very human.  His strength comes from his pain, and his humanity.  From Bruce Wayne’s sense of loss comes Batman’s unrelenting fight against evil, so that no one else has to suffer has he does.  There was only one sincere moment when this came through in the movie, and I thought it was a very clever piece of storytelling. Another criticism of Affleck was that I just didn’t buy into his paranoia about Superman. It seemed forced to me.

One thing really missing from both Cavil’s and Affleck’s performances was a drop of humour. Jeremy Irons, as Alfred, did insert a couple of quips but not enough. He was a very good Alfred as well, easily on par with Michael Caine’s.

There is an overt deific theme running through them, which continues from Man of Steel.  Not only through the way Superman’s scenes were shot but the constant references to Superman as God. 

This leads me to Jessie Eisenberg as the Riddler(Joke attributed to J. Hopgood the man is a genius), His depiction of the Riddler was excellent and helped me understand the distinction between the concept of the Riddler and the Joker.  His frenetic and irrational psychosis was right on-par for what I understood the Riddler to be. Which is a shame as Eisenberg was actually playing Lex Luther. Eisenberg’s performance starts out rational enough as the young genius who has inherited a large multinational corporation.  He quickly descends into a weird lunatic characterisation which pretty much ruined any scene he was in.  He was atrocious.

The plot was good, but a little drawn out and poorly executed as an actual story. Luther’s evil plan once revealed could have been recognition of his genius, but ended up seeming like a plot hole.  The action sequences were epic, tighter than Man of Steel, and better paced.  Batman is portrayed as a tactical and intelligent fighter and his fight scene in the warehouse is one of the best in the movie.

The very end of the film is drawn out, unnecessary and tiresome.  I can see how it could detract from the rest of the movie as any enjoyment is sucked out of you.  Batman v Superman is an overly ambitious epic which needed a more charm and an injection of well-placed humour, but not the abomination that the critics portray.

For fans of the DC comic universe, this movie will probably cause a lot of dialogue, in a good way.  For everyone else I suspect that is you go in with an open mind a bit of patience you might enjoy it, but if you go in expecting The Avengers you will probably hate it. Batman v Superman is not what I would call ‘fun’, it is a film that will divide audiences into liking it, or hating it.

6 Monkeys. 

For fans of Neil Gaiman's Sandman

So I just saw this post from Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

"So, as you might know if you like to follow these sorts of things, a while back, David Goyer and I made a producing deal with Warner Brothers to develop a movie adaptation of Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN. Neil himself came on as an executive producer, we hired the excellent screenwriter, Jack Thorne, and we started in on the ambitious task of adapting one of the most beloved and boundary-pushing titles in the world of comics. I was pleased with the progress we were making, even though we still had quite a ways to go.

Recently, as you also might know if you like to follow these sorts of things, the sorta "ownership" (for lack of a better term) of the Sandman material changed hands when Warner Brothers shifted the entire catalogue of Vertigo comics (an imprint of DC) to their subsidiary, New Line. And a few months ago, I came to realize that the folks at New Line and I just don't see eye to eye on what makes Sandman special, and what a film adaptation could/should be. So unfortunately, I decided to remove myself from the project. I wish nothing but the best for the team moving forward.

I'd like to thank all the great people I've had the opportunity to work with on this one. I've had a blast with and learned a ton from David and Jack. Niija Kuykendall, Greg Silverman, and everyone at Warner Brothers have been fantastic, as have Geoff Johns and everyone at DC. And it's been a particular privilege as well as a rocking good time getting to know Mr. Gaiman, whose generous insights and masterful work have certainly convinced me that the Lord of Dreams and the Prince of Stories are one and the same Endless pattern.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt"

I am not sure what this means going forward, or even if this is a bad thing. I have been excited, and nervous about a Sandman adaptation. Stories like this could be made into fantastic films, however, would they? Consider The recent Hobbit films, or any film about Greek Mythology. Gordon-Levitt was the driving force behind his film Don Jon, which I really liked. He was also a producer on Looper, which I also liked, so I was more excited than worried when I heard that he was behind this project. He was the one that brought on Gaiman, and was very passionate about the Sandman film. 

Admittedly as a brand new father my movie options are very few at the moment. But this is one I would see.  Neil Gaiman is still involved, so we can only bide our time and see. But I for one am a little sad as I would have liked to see Gordon-Levitt remain with the movie. 

Night everybody. 

The problems with pregnancy

I actually started to write this last December, but the end of the year and the impending birth of my first child is a bit of a distraction. But here we are. 

Disney paid $4 Billion dollars for the Star wars Franchise and that is a lot of investment to risk on one film. Yes, it does mean that they get the profits from the toys and marketing and other revenue, but even in today’s money $4,000,000,000 is still a sizeable sum. But unlike other films which may or may not succeed at the box office, Disney has a plan to earn revenue off a series of movies set in the Star Wars universe long after you and I are dead. If The Force Awakens had flopped then that plan was on shaky ground.

One of the films they are working on is the origin story of Han Solo. Yes, one of films greatest pilots and rogues is getting his own film.  But who would play him?  Harrison Ford was 35 when he played Han, so realistically we are looking at someone who is or looks like they are in their 20’s, and who could carry such an iconic role.

Looking around the various film websites, I have found sever contenders, some serious, others which seem ludicrous. According to consequence of sound  Disney has auditioned 2500 actors for the role.  

 Some of the contenders are; Chris Pratt, Chris Pine, James Franco, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ryan Gosling, Zac Effron and Robert Pattinson.  I think you would have to instantly rule out Pine and Pratt because they have their own franchises already, and I just don’t think they would gel.

Franco’s too old and he doesn’t have the right je ne sais quoi for me. The same for Gordan Levitt, who I really like as an actor but I am not sure could fill the role.  Gosling is too smug, Pattinson is too sparkly, and I’m be damned if he sets foot on the Falcon.

Zac Effron. Now bear with me here. Your first thought would be “isn’t he that guy from High School musical?” Yeah he is, but he moved on from that a while ago, and hasn’t played a role in a sparkly vampire movie.  I think out of the list so far he could, but to be honest he is a little too good looking to be Han Solo (no offense Mr Ford).

I have seen some other actor’s names thrown around so I will cover them off quickly:

• Colton Hyanes (Arrow, Teen Wolf)  too pretty
• Ansel Elgort (Fault in our Stars) too sensitive
• Liam Hemsworth (Hunger games) too hungry
• Scott Eastwood (nothing I have seen) too unknown

Now here is my list of people who might be able to fill the role. Dylan O’Brian, Aaron Taylor Johnson, and Anthony Ingruber. 

Ingruber and Ford

I really like Aaron Taylor-Johnson; he is a good actor with a range that stretches from Kickass to Anna Katarina to Avengers. He certainly has the acting chops to pull it off, but I am not entirely sold on the concept.

It is highly unlikely that you would have ever heard of Anthony Ingruber. But for me he is the best prospect. Here is his impersonation of Han Solo.

I have no idea who they will choose, and given my success at choosing the next Dr Who maybe I am not that skilled at these sorts of pics. But if I had any choice I would choose Mr Inguber.

STARWARS The Force Awakens

I liked it.

I am not going to talk about anything specific, but JJ Abrams makes this film work. The Force Awakens is definitely a Star Wars movie.  

The story is the swashbuckling adventure that fans both want and need. It is both poignant and funny in all the right places, with plenty of action. New characters are introduced and they work. Daisy Ridley, John Boyega’s performances are great and they not only fit seamlessly into the canon, but they are appealing. You care about them. The old favourites are back with a vengeance. Harrison Ford steals every scene as Han Solo, and there seemed to be a genuine affection between Solo and Leia (Carrie Fisher) which fans will find endearing.

Abram used little CGI and lots of physical sets and costumes which gave the movie a verisimilitude the prequels just did not have. He also made a film that could appeal to a younger audience without resorting to making it about kids (apparently Lucas intended to make the same mistakes he made with Episode one by focusing on children. This is Star Wars, not Goonies for space dammit!). Abrams has really focused on bringing this film, and the franchise back to its roots.

Episode VII; The Force Awakens is a story about family, the legacy of family and the impact and struggle that children can have with defining their own identity while living up to the expectation of the new generation.

My one criticism is that Abrams may have played it too safe and that at a certain point in the film it became a little predictable.

The crowd I was with seemed happy, and I think that Abrams’ has set up a successful franchise for the future. It was definitely entertaining and fun. 

Many people are talking about Paris. First there was shock and sadness as we became aware that 129 people were killed, and more wounded. 

But not just Paris, two days before that horrible night suicide bombers in Beirut killed 43 people and wounded 249 people. 

What can I say? What can I say that hasn’t been said by more eloquent people or by those more directly involved than I?

I wasn’t going to say anything to be honest, but then I started to notice little things, like articles about how some states in America are refusing to take in any Syrian refugees because of the attacks. Articles about how if you exhibit any sympathy for Paris you are probably a narcissist, or insensitive because you do not acknowledge what happened in Beirut, or if you do you are still insensitive because, what about Africa? and the list goes on.

Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

A few months ago I was on my honeymoon in Paris with my beautiful wife.   We scrimped and saved and went without so we could have a dream honeymoon together, and I am pleased to say that we did have a fantastic trip. 

However after seeing where the attacks were, I realised that had the timing had been different, that could have been us. One or both of us could have killed, and that makes me think. 

 I love Paris, it is everything it promises.  I have never been to Beirut, but I know it shares a couple of things with Paris. The first was that once, in happier times, it was once known as the Paris of the Mediterranean, until it was torn apart by war. The second and most important thing Beirut shares with Paris are that it is filled with people. 43 of whom did not deserve to have their lives stolen by a couple of idiots. 

One person who died was Adel Termous, a young father of two, who tackled one of the suicide bombers and saved dozens of people when the bomber prematurely set off his bomb.

Mr Termous’ life mattered, everyone else that was killed in Beirut and Paris, their lives mattered.  If you think what happened in Beirut and Paris was horrific and you want to donate to various charities to provide assistance you can. 

What happened in the last few days is horrible and it can seem that there isn’t much we can do to help or to show we care. But we can, we can light a candle in the dark, hug our loved ones, be nice to our friends, be nicer to strangers, just be courteous is a good start.

That is why if you want to show people that you wish to show solidarity to the people of Lebanon by posting stuff on FB or twitter then do it. If you want to post a picture of peace, or prayer or whatever, then do it. Any symbol or act that shows that you care about the people in our world is a positive act. 

People may say that you are jumping on a band wagon but so what? Have you ever been on a band wagon? I haven’t but it sounds amazing. One, it’s a wagon, and who doesn’t love a good wagon. 

 Bill Watterson rocks

Two, it has a band on it! How awesome does that sound! I mean think of an awesome band, and you are on their wagon!

So let’s take a moment to care about people, and ignore those petty comments or articles that might try and sabotage you.  

On a more fun note if you are feeling a little blue from all the horror in the world watch an uplifting movie.  Here are some suggestions: 

• The Muppet Movie
•  Zombieland
•  The Lion King
• Amelie
•  Love Actually 
• The Breakfast Club
• The Princess Bride
• The Blues Brothers
• Dirty Dancing (my wife's suggestion)
• The Lego Movie

Just remember people matter, you matter, and as Bill, that great philosopher said “Be Excellent to each other.”

          

The Martian

Has Ridley Scott finally made a decent Sci film? Let us see.

Synopsis:

During the manned Aries three mission to Mars, a freak storm causes the mission commander (Jessica Chastain)  to abort the mission early and leave Mars. But while the team is evacuating Mars one of the team, Botanist Mark Whately (Matt Damon), is supposedly killed. The rest of team reluctantly leave and head for Earth.

Except Mark survived the storm. After taking stock of his situation, Mark determines that he might be able to survive until the next manned mission to Mars if he can contact NASA.

Ensue Martian hijinx.

I find Matt Damon is one of those actors whose characterisations are for the most part all pretty similar regardless of his role. I don't necessarily have an issue with this, it is just if you like Matt Damon then you will enjoy this film.  The film does have a very strong ensemble cast with Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jeff Daniels, Jessica Chastain and firm favorite Sean Bean. Here's a spoiler Sean DOESN'T DIE! The supporting cast gives reasonable performances, however, the film's focus is firmly on Damon and his trials on Mars and you might find that rest of cast a little subdued. 

The Martian is a science fiction castaway story which focuses on a balance of science and politics.  While Mark Whately "Sciences the shit" out of his problems, NASA has to weigh and balance public opinion with its fragile budget.  But  I think what make The Martian work is that the film is all about problem-solving. How do I do this, or how can we make this happen. It is interesting and highly engaging, and Damon does give a good blend of drama and humour to keep it interesting. 

While the plot doesn't contain a lot of surprises the story still manages to carry tension and avoids melodrama. Mark does not have a wife and children waiting for him at home, so we thankfully avoid any cliches. As for the science, well if Neil deGrasse Tyson is on board, then that is good enough for me.  It has drama, and elements of humour and it keeps you fully entertained until the end credits.

As it is directed by Ripley Scott it is beautiful well-crafted film and as such worth seeing on the big screen. Scott effectively turns the deserts of Jordan  into the alien  face of Mars. 

I really enjoyed this film, and I think that it is worthy of the hype. 

Chappie

It has been two months since I have written a post and I apologise to you, both my readers, for my tardiness. However, I have not been to the movies for a while as I am about to become a father.

Huzzah us!

Unfortunately as I am not independently wealthy I have had to cut back on a lot of luxuries in order to prepare for a wee mouth to feed; wine that costs more than $11, leaving the house other than to go to my public service job, and sadly, regular visits to the movies. But speaking of bringing new life in the world I just watched Chappie. 

Synopsis:

In a dystopian future the Johannesburg police department has deployed robots to help them manage skyrocketing crime (although this sounds more like a Utopia for J-berg really).  The deployment of the "Scouts" is incredibly successfully, and Devon (Dev Patel), who created the Scouts, is now looking at the next step in robotics and computing, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).

Devon, frustrated by his employers refusal to recognise his dream, steals a broken Scout and drives off to test if his A.I. programme would work. However a gang of thieves kidnap Devon as he is leaving with the stolen Scout, in the hope that they can use him to disable the robotic police force.  Devon explains that he can’t ‘turn off the Scouts remotely’ but if he lets them activate the broken Scout with his test programme it could help them.  

Ensue Robotic hijinks.

Chappie is written and directed by Neill Blomkamp who previously brought us the magnificent District 9, and the exceedingly disappointing Elysium.  Thus it was with mixed feelings that I sat down to watch Blomkamp’s next film.  I have to say I was surprised how film drew me in. Blomkamp’s depiction of Chappie from the moment he was turned on, all the way through his development was, for a lack of a better word, enchanting. You cannot help but love Chappie. I felt the same way about Chappie as I did about Wall-E, it was hard to justify the affection I had for this childlike robot but there it was. Blomkamp’s depiction of Chappie learning and experiencing life as a new sentient being was truly inspiring.  

This was helped byYo-Landi, a gang member who even though she is a violent thief, Yo-Landi recognises that Chappie is a vulnerable child, and her maternal instincts kick in. Yo-Landi starts to love Chappie so do we as the audience.  

However while I watched and enjoyed this I couldn’t help but find this film starting to seem very familiar. Then the parallels with the 1986 film Short Circuit became more and more apparent.  If you haven’t seen it, Short Circuit is a 1986 comedy about an experimental military robot that gets hit by lightning and comes alive. Sure the premise is similar, and I can forgive that, but about a third of the way through Chappie, I felt as if I was now watching Short circuit.  

And the similarities to other films do not stop there. There is also the obvious parallel to the 1987 Sci-fi classic RoboCop, which is about a cop, who after being mortally injured has most of his body is replaced by robotic parts. But overcomes his robotic programming and regains his humanity. Sure, this is a little familiar, but not that similar. However the bad guy in RoboCop (well one of them) was a big merciless robot known as the Ed-209. The bad guy in Chappie is Devon’s rival at Tetravaal, Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman). Vincent is an ex-soldier turned engineer who has developed a huge robotic drone, the Moose, to be deployed by the police.  The Johannesburg’s Police, though, are happy with the Scouts and feel that Moore’s Moose is to over powered (it can shoot down planes.) The thing is the Moose bears a striking resemblance to the Ed-209.

ED-209

 

Moose

Now all of these are slightly minor criticisms. Of course a movie about a robot policeman becoming sentient is going to be compared to any movie about robots. Is the Moose modelled after the Ed-209? Probably, and while Chappie’s similarities to both these films is more than obvious and a little jarring it is not it’s biggest problem.

Blomkamp is a great action director and his sympathetic portrayal of Chappie is simply marvellous. However his focus on Chappie’s story come at the expense of most of the other characters. Dev Patel is a simple two dimensional caricature of Chappie's creator. Patel is a great actor and his talent is simply squandered. The same goes for Sigourney Weaver. Michelle is a bit part, and apart from attaching Weaver’s name to the movie there seems little point from her being in it. Which is a crime really, as Weaver is a good actress who gets no scope or opportunity to show it.

Hugh Jackman is the same. His character, Moore, seems lacking, and his motivations confused and simple. He resents Devon because of the Scout's success at the expense of the Moose, sure, but given the current climate and scientific debate about the future deployment of Robots in combat situations over human controlled drones I feel that Blomkamp missed a major thematic opportunity here. 

That aside Moore’s Moose is a ridiculously overpowered weapon with little practical application in urban police work, but it seems perfect for the military. It seems weird and stupid that a company that specialises in manufacturing weapons doesn’t think to approach the military with the Moose? "Hey boss I have created his heavily weaponised drone that can level a medium sized town. Let's make it a policeman!" Chappie also suffers from villain overload, with Moore and Hippo vying for the top spot, with Hippo becoming quickly irrelivant to the plot. 

The end, which I will not discuss here,  makes no sense at all. Thematically or logically. Yes the premise of the film asks us to suspend our disbelief with Robots and A.I., which we do because the narrative gives us a world in which we can believe this is the reality. However the end goes completely off the reservation buth plot wise and thematically. 

Blomkamp made what could have been a great film about A.I. and sentience and also compassion and then ruins it by bringing up the theme of what is consciousness? It is almost like he didn’t know quite know how to end the movie at all.

While it starts strong and Blomkamp depiction of Chappie is probably the best example of the genre ever, the movie suffers from plot holes, wasted actors and a ludicrous finale.

Four Monkeys.