Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice

The first of the year's big blockbusters arrives with Zack Synder's second visit to the world of DC Comics. And whilst it's not as bad some reviews would suggest it does have a lot of problems.

I have to say the film is one of the oddest mainstream films I've seen in terms of it's structure and editing. Roughly the first hour and a half or so (of a two and half hour film) verges on being downright incoherent.

It skips from scene to scene with no apparent connection as it flails around for story and characters, frequently throwing in multiple vision and dream sequences. More than once it cuts straight into such a sequence with no signposting then to a 'real world' scene and then back to another dreamscape sequence. Indeed one such sequence ends to be revealed to still be a dream in a "then he woke up moment".

The effect overall is fairly disorientating and not helped by some very strange editing choices, for example at point we cut from a scene to an establishing shot and the straight into an interior scene taking place somewhere else entirely. It's like Synder and his team have actually forgotten the basic aspects of film language.

Things start to settle down but there are still bizarre choices. In the build up to the central title fight the film takes a pause to basically show us one of the characters watching what amount to trailers for forthcoming feature attractions starring Aquaman, Cyborg and The Flash.

But problems return once we get to the final third as despite the film struggling to pack it as much as possible we really haven't been given enough to invest in any of the characters, pivotally Superman himself is badly underdeveloped.

We are told he's conflicted, but we really don't see it and all Cavill does is stand around with a sort of middle distance stare expression on his face. He's not even really allowed to be heroic apart from in a brief montage.

Nor is there any real explanation behind Lex Luthor's hatred of Superman, there are some nice ideas vaguely expressed but it doesn't really become anything meaningful. Although I don't find Eissenberg's performance as annoying as many seem to and there does seem to be an intended character ark at play for him.

 On the positive side though speaking of performance and characterisation Affleck's Batman is the stand out thing in the film. As long as you get onboard with the idea of a Bruce Wayne who has seen too much and been doing this far too long, has basically snapped and is now more than happy to outright kill lots of bad people.

The film does contain a few hints to suggest why Bruce has gone down this route and it actually feeds into why he feels it so necessary to tackle Superman. (Which does help cover over some of the more dubious bits of his reasoning). His fleeting scenes of interaction with Jeremy Irons' Alfred suggesting a stand alone Batman film with the pair is a promising prospect.

Amy Adam's Lois is just there to get rescued basically. And basically no one else in the cast does anything else of note or show any kind of real characterisation.

But another highlight in the at times dreary slog is Gal Galdot's Wonder Women once she finally appears in full Amazonian warrior mode. She provides by far the most stylish and entertaining parts of the final climatic battle but I do remain unconvinced about her acting range in terms of carrying a film by herself since she's only got around five to six minutes of screen time.

Speaking of the final battle, unfortunately the film reverts back to the end of Man of Steel and the last chunk is a barely followable fight between our heroes and some bad CGI. One which shows very little imagination or craft a few Wonder Woman moments aside.

Also disappointing is the bouts of the title match-up. Bats and Supes have two face-offs, one is very, very short and the second longer sequence (although it's still not very long) is actually rather uninspiring.

Again there is no real imagination in the fight, if you've seen the end of Man of Steel, you basically have seen this fight. They've just moved it to an abandoned building. (Indeed the film is at great pain to repeatedly tell us deserted the environments are after the criticism of the previous films massively high levels of destruction). There is so much potential in a film version of these two characters doing battle but it's just not realised.

Much like his previous films Synder is happiest when putting together montages, he is good at montages, and in an early beginning sequence showing Bruce navigating Metropolis during Man of Steel's climax.

Now I've not gone into spoilers here, I can do later if people are interested, but suffice to say there are quite a lot of logical leaps, characters being stupid and face palm moments.

So overall the film is not Green Lantern level rubbish but it's not very good either. The first two thirds drags on, likes to think it's being all smart and lurches around like it's drunk. The final thirds regains structure and a sense of purpose but it's done without any sense of imagination or creativity. It's just seen it all before action fodder with an ending that reaches for heartstrings but misses (a final montage is quite effectively done though) for the most part as none of the characters have, well much character.

10 Cloverfield Lane

It's hard to go into the plot of 10 Cloverfield Lane too much without getting into spoilers, loosely Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Michelle wakes up after a car accident to find herself locked in an underground survival shelter, John Goodman's Howard tells her that everything outside is dead and they can't go outside.

Michelle doesn't believe him but fellow bunker dweller Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) agrees something did happen to the world outside. However Howard is hiding some secrets.

Despite the name the film is not directly linked to Cloverfield, there are some small things like adverts for Slusho and mention of a couple of other companies named in Cloverfield. But as the PR has suggested it's more a thematic and overall feel that is shared.

Very much a three hander the film shares some thematic qualities as "Right At Your Door" although it's actually not quite as tense and doesn't share the same gut-punch ending.

The majority of the film sees an fascinating exploration of the dynamic of the three main characters whilst meanwhile feeding in the odd thing to raise questions as to what is really happening.

How long has Michelle been in the bunker? Is Howard telling the truth about what happened to his daughter? Is Emmett meant to be in there? Why is that 'Help' message scratched on the inside of the window?

Mary Elizabeth Winstead's strong central performance as the same and capable Michelle, makes you wonder why she isn't a bigger star than she is. It's a performance that moves from vulnerable to questioning to determined and very much helps sell the gear shift the film undergoes in it's final stretch.

John Gallagher Jr. is also give a good performance as Emmett, bringing a earthy quality to the part which helps balance the dynamic between the central three.

A less even performance comes from John Goodman, he brings a strange off putting sense to his Howard, visibly showing awkwardness whilst speaking to the others. This is a man who struggles to relate to people. However he doesn't always convince with some of his character's more violent swings in demeanour.

Director Dan Trachtenberg brings at lot of energy to film mostly set in about four rooms, the opening scenes/credits are very nicely done for example and he ensures there is a real sense of claustrophobia to the shelter.

Now I don't think it's a surprise to find out there are twists in the tale and that the final stretch of the film offers something of a switch-up. When it comes, it's executed very well from a technical standpoint, it's a rush and stands up very well against similar material.

However it's one that I'm not sure totally worked for me, but possibly because I wasn't expecting something quite as significant a gear shift and I do wonder how much of a rewrite the finale received to bring it closer to Cloverfield to suit the title.

So the film is three quarters a slow burn thriller with a nice number of questions to be resolved and a couple of genuinely surprising moments as well as a couple of great character moments. The last quarter is something quite different as things finally spiral out of control and then the last half of that final phase is something else again entirely.

Oh and the film has the best hazmat in history.

And the trailer is kinda awesome;

Hail, Caesar!

Here's the fist thoughts on a year of cinema. I've signed up for a year long pass at the Odeon which basically lets me go to the cinema as much as I want, so I figure I'll kept notes and thought on what I've seen during the year (will be fun for me to least to look back on)

So up first is the Coen brothers' "Hail, Ceaser!".

The film follows a fictionalised version of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) a notorious 'Head of Production' aka fixer for MGM whose job was to kept the contracted stars in line and out of the papers. Here we have trying to track down a kidnapped star amongst other things.

It's packed with a great cast including George Clooney as the kidnapped Kirk Douglas style star, Scarlett Johannsson a aquatic pictures star who's not as innocent as her reputation, Channing Tatum a musical performer, Johan Hill, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton and more, The problem is they all feel underused giving the impression that a lot of material must of have been left on the cutting room floor.

Johannsson's story in particular feel's truncated and like it was originally intended to be a bigger part of the film. Indeed one of Mannix's most notable (and nasty) stories concerned having a female star "adopt" her own baby to hide the shame of single motherhood, a story clearly the basis for this part of the film.

It's only really Brolin's Mannix that has much screen time out of the case and I'd say he's not given much interesting to do beyond the centre of swirling almost farce. The one aspect that gives a bit of insight into Mannix is brace of scenes of him considering a new job offer.

Overall the film is something which never quite gets going, for it's whole run time it feels like it's going to start picking up speed but never quite does. If it had the energy of the likes of "Raising Arizona" I think it would have worked much better. There are strange choices like the pause to show a song & dance number being filmed for of the fictional films in full with no clear indication why. It just slows things down.

It illustrates the issues here, some scenes really work. Fiennes' director struggling getting a rodeo star newly assigned to his film to get the lines right. The 'study group' of Communists. (The old school Hollywood studio as analogy for the evils of capitalism appealed to the sociologist and film nerd in me!) A visit to a professional legal stand-in.

But amongst these are scenes that drift like the fore mentioned song and dance, scenes the feel like they've been dropped in from a more manic film (those with Tilda Swinton's duel cameo) or Mannix speaking with Christopher Lambert's director which seems to fill no purpose.

Being the Coens there is meticulous attention paid to details such as the period setting, the difference aspect ratios used for each of the different faux films so they appear as they would have in their day.

Overall it's largely enjoyable but very much a lesser effort from the Coen brothers. The good news is last time they made a farce that didn't quite work with "Burn After Reading" the came back with "A Serious Man" and "True Grit"

Continuing adventures of riker Archer...