Zootropolis - Review

Ah, Disney… For many of us, the company played a significant part in our childhood. I remember being raised on several Disney classics both animated and live-action, whilst one of my earliest cinema-going memories was seeing The Hunchback of Notre Dame with my mum whilst on holiday. But part of the magic of Disney is that we can view their films from different perspectives as both a child and an adult whilst still experiencing the magic of what’s unfolding on screen. For example, I loved The Hunchback of Notre Dame as a child, but when I watch it as an adult, I not only love it for its beautiful animation and likeable heroes but also respect it for its surprisingly adult thematic material and imagery. This is how Disney has continued to thrive, through delivering entertainment which speaks on an equal level to both children and adults alike. And that tradition is kept alive and breathing with Zootropolis (or Zootopia as it’s known in the U.S), an exquisitely crafted film which not only provides dazzling animation along with an intriguing mystery and brilliant action/comedy scenes, but which also crafts an affectingly deep and sincere morality tale about the dangers of prejudice and narrow-mindedness.

Ever since she was a child, Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) has always wanted to be a cop. Whilst this is an unusual dream (there has never been a rabbit cop before), she succeeds and is immediately dispatched to the heart of the capitol city Zootropolis, only to be dismissed to parking duty by the consistently put-upon Chief Bogo (voiced by Idris Elba). However, when the chance to prove herself arises with a worrying spat of disappearances, Judy sets off to solve the case along with a roped-in con artist fox named Nick Wilde (voice of Jason Bateman).

As it is a Disney production, you’d expect the animation to be first-rate, and Zootropolis doesn’t cease to amaze in that department. The film is never anything less than gorgeous to look at, whether in the sun-draped landscapes of Judy’s home-town or the dark and ominous locations which she and Nick investigate. Those latter locations are great nods to the debt Zootropolis owes old-school film noir, and the attention to detail only adds greater potency to what is already a surprisingly involving mystery plot. The level of detail in every frame is simply mind-boggling, and there are many scenes which don’t fail to take the breath away. From a purely visual standpoint, my favourite sequence has to be Judy’s journey to and arrival in Zootropolis. There is a real sense of discovery in this scene, of a new world being unravelled before your eyes, and as corny as this may sound, that scene is simply draped in the magic which defines Disney. When even the subtlest of twitches in a character’s face is a fantastic visual touch, you know that you’re getting something beautiful to behold.  

But, while Disney are well-known for their high-quality animation, they’re also well-known for their lovable characters, something which Zootropolis really excels at. This is a great, eclectic cast of characters, and whilst a good deal of credit for this should go to the screen-writing team of co-director Jared Bush and Phil Johnston for their wonderful and deceptive clever script, a great deal of these characters’ appeal really does come from the cast. First and foremost is Ginnifer Goodwin as Judy Hopps. Simply put, Goodwin is pure perfection in the role, turning Judy into a strong, determined and adorable lead character. Judy’s journey and personality are genuinely relatable, and Goodwin helps to make the character even more identifiable and bubbly whilst steering clear of the risk of coming across as a goody-two shoes by lending some lovable sass to proceedings, especially in her scenes with Nick. Speaking of Nick, Jason Bateman is as terrific as always as the cool con artist with hidden depths (as revealed in a surprisingly dark scene). Bateman is a comedic master with cool-as-a-cucumber delivery, which almost guarantees that all of Nick’s funny lines land brilliantly, but he also gives extra weight and dimension to the role and is given even more presence through the spectacular chemistry he shares with Goodwin. Simply put, the pairing of Judy and Nick is one of the best pairings I think I have ever seen from a Disney film. Their rapport is so effortless and endearing that I’d probably be comfortable watching them chat over a cup of coffee, and their different personalities complement each other perfectly.

Surrounding Goodwin and Bateman is a truly sensational cast. As far as scene-stealing goes, the top prize has to go to Idris Elba. Elba is simply having a blast as Chief Bogo, bringing his usual weight and powerful presence to the role but proving a genuine surprise in his wonderfully funny delivery. Bogo is a fantastic character, and Elba is pitch-perfect. If his voice work here is anything to go by, his performance as Shere Khan in the new Jungle Book will hopefully be amazing (and, from what I’ve heard thus far, it really is). Nate Torrence brings an infectious energy to Desk Sergeant Clawhauser, whilst Jenny Slate is likeably put-upon as Assistant Mayor Dawn Bellwether. As I said in my Kung Fu Panda 3 review, J.K. Simmons seems to have taken a sudden interest in anthropomorphic animals this year; whilst his performance here isn’t as prominent as in that other film, Simmons still does typically strong work as Mayor Lionheart. Don Lake and Bonnie Hunt are both immensely warm and realistically worried as Judy’s parents; the scenes where they try to temper their daughter’s dreams with what they perceive to be reality is something which will prove easily identifiable for many people, whether they be a parent or a child. Alan Tudyk (who’s quickly becoming one of my favourite voice actors based on his transformative work in nearly every Disney animated film since Wreck-It Ralph) adds yet another great vocal turn to his resume as thief Duke Weaselton; the character’s name and Tudyk’s voice combined pose one of at least two in-jokes aimed towards a certain Disney hit involving an ice queen. Finally, pop star Shakira has a very small role as, well, pop star Gazelle; her only significant piece of dialogue comes during a beautifully written and performed monologue in the latter part of the film. Her real contribution to the film comes during the film’s main song, Try Everything, which is a truly catchy and wonderful tune which I find difficult to get out of my head.

The greatest strength of Zootropolis, and the greatest surprise for me personally, is just how adult it is. Some of the humour really pushes the PG rating, particularly with a hysterical reference to a certain TV show which was so audacious I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. And the chase sequences, whilst starting off on an inventively hilarious note with a decidedly ‘small-scale’ pursuit, prove surprisingly intense and frightening later in proceedings, with one chase through the jungle proving to be a genuinely edge-of-the-seat affair. What really makes the film seem more mature than initial observation might suggest is the exploration of the thematic material on display. The issue of prejudice is front and centre, with Judy trying her best to perform her job but consistently being under-estimated by those around her. However, one smart move from the filmmakers is in not making her innocent either; Judy makes some serious mistakes, for which there are serious consequences. Whereas other Disney films might have played this for comedy or not treated it with as much weight, Judy is justifiably held accountable for her actions, which makes her only seem like more of a flesh-and-blood real character. Later in the film, the issue of prejudice becomes even more prevalent, straying into potential discussions of racial tensions. I’d like to say that these issues aren’t evident in today’s world, but judging by particular political situations especially in the U.S, that’s not the case. I can’t applaud the filmmakers enough for tackling these themes in a powerful way which speaks to both children and adults; for children, it’s important to learn never to rush to conclusions (since this is something which even some adults struggle with), and for adults it’s important to see family entertainment which is not only capable of offering a great and fun experience but also treating them with respect. This is a Disney film where one character says, with a resigned sadness, that ‘the world has always been broken’. Major props go to the directing team of Jared Bush, Rich Moore and Byron Howard and the two screenwriters for refusing to sugar-coat real and true points of life, whilst making a poignantly hopeful statement about how it’s possible to transcend your perceived stereotype with determination, hard work and self-belief.

So how great is Zootropolis (and yes, I consider this to be a great film?) Well, I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I’ve been considering all of the Disney films of the last two decades, and I’m going to make this statement; in my opinion, Zootropolis is the best Disney animated film since 1996’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame (that’s not including Pixar’s output, though). I know that’s a bold statement to make, since there have been many fantastic films from Disney’s animation department since 1996 (I’m really fond of the likes of Mulan, Tarzan, Treasure Planet, Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph and Frozen). I’ve been trying to think of any issues I may have, and I’ve got nothing. Sure, there may be some predictable moments, but they are executed so organically and fit in so well with the themes of the film that I really can’t take much issue. This is a real gem, beautifully paced and scored impeccably by the genius composer Michael Giacchino. The glorious animation and wonderful characters are critical parts of the film’s success, but what really helps to take the film up to an even higher level are the thematic power and the sensational world-building. Thematically, this is a Disney film which takes its seemingly childish story and imbues it with genuinely adult intelligence. The emphasis on prejudice and fear so easily creating social barriers makes this a timely and relevant piece of entertainment, and the treatment of the subject matter by the directors and writers is profoundly confident. As for the world-building, this is a world which feels like it was crafted with care, assuredness and great attention; whilst the film offers more than enough personality for the different environments to prove captivating, there is more than enough unexplored territory to make me want a sequel. And I do want a sequel ASAP. After a marvellous final monologue, even the terrific final joke gets across the film’s prominent message that you would never buy into someone because of any potential stereotypes. And on that grace note, my love for this film was solidified.

Final Verdict

Zootropolis is one of the biggest cinematic delights in recent memory, and is one of the best Disney films in a long time. The animation is typically superlative and the cast is close to pitch-perfect, but the directors and writers take proceedings to an even greater level through their surprisingly mature work; not only does the humour and action venture into some risqué and intense territory, but the thematic material concerning prejudice and fear is given real weight and poignancy. The world of Zootropolis, both in the environments and the characters, is simply spectacular, and I would jump at the chance to revisit this world. Come on, Disney; please make it happen.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5   

         

Batman V Superman - Review

Well, I’m pretty sure that this was one of the most-anticipated films of the year, and that’s putting it mildly…

Brace yourselves, folks; I’ve got a LOT to say about this one.

 For many comic-book fans, film fans and fans of both alike, Batman V Superman is a pretty big deal. Promising the clash of a lifetime between two superhero icons, this film was not only meant to be a big blockbuster event in its own right, but was also meant to sow the seeds for what was to follow AKA Justice League. But, in their rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which, when Doctor Strange is released in November, will have produced a grand total of 14 films thus far), have Warner Bros. and DC bitten off more than they can chew? Let’s take a gander…

Using the ending of 2013’s Man of Steel as a springboard, Batman V Superman opens (after revisiting a scene fans of Batman will know all too well) in the midst of the Metropolis battle, only this time from the viewpoint of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck). After losing friends and workers during the conflict, Wayne grows increasingly paranoid and bitter towards Superman (Henry Cavill), whom he views as responsible. Meanwhile, Superman and his alter ego Clark Kent are facing the conflicted emotions of the human race, some who view him as a saviour and others who view him as a ticking time-bomb. As well as this, he’s taken note of the brutal Bat vigilante wreaking havoc on criminals in Gotham and is becoming determined to stop him. Whilst Batman and Superman look set to collide in a furious battle, the mysterious Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and unstable billionaire Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) enter the fray with their own agendas…

First things first: no one can deny that director Zack Snyder (who also helmed Man of Steel) knows how to make a film look good. The visual aesthetic he brings to the film, whilst decidedly grim and bleak, is nonetheless captivating and hauntingly beautiful in certain scenes; an early example of this is the opening sequence which details the fate of Bruce’s parents. Whilst this is a scene we’ve seen several times before, the visual composition from both Snyder and cinematographer Larry Fong give the moment an operatically visceral punch which revitalised the scene for me personally. There are magnificently framed shots littered all throughout the film, and the majority of them pack a grandeur one would hope to associate with a film titled Batman V Superman. And, as is to be expected, Snyder and Fong are aided with mostly spectacular visual effects (although some come across as a bit undercooked, most notably in the final confrontation). From a purely visual standpoint, Batman V Superman doesn’t disappoint. Aurally, too, the film is powerfully compelling; most of this is thanks to the stellar musical score from Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL, which combines the expectedly exciting grandiosity flowing through the multiple scraps with unexpectedly tender and chilling work underlining the two titular characters.

Speaking of the two titular characters, let’s talk about Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill. As soon as he was announced, Ben Affleck received no end of flak on the Internet. The haters brought forth the ghosts of past failures such as Gigli, Paycheck and especially Daredevil (Affleck’s last shot at portraying a superhero), whilst all but ignoring the noteworthy steps he’s taken as not only a director but also an actor in the past decade since those aforementioned films. I had hope for Affleck right from his announcement, and now that the film’s been released, I can happily say that my faith has been rewarded; Affleck nails it. Whether as the smarmily confident playboy, the brooding and simmering man behind that persona or finally the brutal and potentially psychopathic Batman, Ben Affleck delivers a terrific performance which easily ranks amongst his best. This is an older Bruce Wayne, one who has seen many atrocities and lost many friends, and Affleck never misses a beat in showing both the torment and rage plaguing this man, as well as the determination to rid the world of a dangerous being who, in his own words, “could burn the whole place down”. The physicality he brings to the role is immense; he owns the mask and cowl, never allowing it to cloud his portrayal and being utterly convincing in the stunning scenes where he brings the terror to the terrible (the introduction of Batman is arguably the most frightening and gothic to date). I could gush about Affleck for a long, long time. Alas, I can’t say the same for Cavill as Superman. Don’t get me wrong; Cavill is good in the role. He has several solid moments and, come the final act where Clark really gets put to the test, Cavill noticeably steps up his game. But there’s still a stiffness to him which neuters his appeal, which is disappointing since his work in the TV show The Tudors shows him to be an effortlessly charming and charismatic actor given the right material. Whilst Affleck gets a healthy dose of material where he can allow his Batman to breathe and establish his presence, either Clark or Superman are given much characterisation for Cavill to work with. One reviewer (and this is someone who loved the film) said it best when she said that Superman was more defined as a character by those around him. I wanted a Superman with more of a personality and with more of his own distinct character, but I didn’t get that and, in my opinion, it held Cavill back from giving a better performance, something which causes a major problem for the film.

Sadly, Cavill isn’t the only one to suffer from a weak character. Amy Adams, one of my favourite actresses working today, tries her best to bring purpose and presence to Clark’s girlfriend and fellow journalist Lois Lane, but both she and the character are sorely let down by the film-maker’s insistence on having her be the damsel in distress far too often. This makes her seem like less of a character and more of a contrivance. A similar fate befalls Diane Lane as Clark’s adoptive mother Martha; Lane brings warmth to the role (and she gets easily one of the film’s best one-liners), but she is woefully under-used, with the character appearing far too little and too late; much like Lois, this is an important character in the Superman mythos, but here she’s treated as more of a plot device.

Whilst Cavill, Adams and Lane are noticeably affected by their under-developed characters, a lot of the supporting cast really sink their teeth into their material. When you have a film with Batman in it, it’s almost inevitable that his trusted butler Alfred will play a part somewhere. In Batman V Superman, we have Jeremy Irons, who delivers his own brilliant and distinct take on the role. Here, Alfred has become resigned to the fact that the master he cares for has not only almost given up much on a normal life in his battle against crime, but may also have begun to lose himself in the same moral cesspool as the criminals he’s fighting. Irons is terrific at portraying this somewhat more bitter and hardened take on the character, and the relationship between him and Bruce is given captivating layers thanks to the interactions between Irons and Affleck. Irons also brings a dry and sarcastic wit to Alfred which lends a much-needed humour to the film. As Perry White, the editor of The Daily Planet where Clark and Lois work, Laurence Fishburne enlivens the film any time he appears. Perry is easily given the largest amount of ‘funny’ lines out of any character bar Alfred, and Fishburne knocks every line out of the park with a cynical zest; his scenes with Clark are also great in emphasising how out-of-date some of Clark’s ideals are perceived to be when compared to the world around him. Holly Hunter (who’s portrayed a superhero herself as the voice of Elasti-Girl in The Incredibles) is superb in her role as a senator with open suspicions about Superman, never more so than in one of the film’s stand-out moments where her performance is key to the steadily amplifying tension.  

Now we come to Gal Gadot as Diana Prince AKA Wonder Woman. When Gadot was announced for this role, she seemed to cause even more controversy than when Affleck was announced as Batman. Haters cried out that she was too petite for the role, along with the fact that she hadn’t exactly proven herself to be a strong actress in the past (after all, her biggest credits prior to this film were her role in the Fast and the Furious series). However, since the release of the film, she seemed to have gathered a really passionate fan base, with several proclaiming her to be sensational in the role. Whilst I think she is solid in the role, I don’t think that Gadot is spectacular here. She certainly has a strong physical presence and she manages to deliver most of the character’s dialogue effectively (despite her powerfully thick accent), but I honestly think that some people may be confusing the character and her abilities as portrayed on screen with the actual performance from Gadot. I’m not saying that Gadot is bad; in fact, she’s probably one of the best things in this film. But I also think that she represents one of the film’s biggest flaws, which I will discuss in more detail later.

Speaking of the film’s biggest flaws, let’s talk about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Whilst both Affleck and Gadot may have received their fair amount of controversy upon being cast, the frenzy surrounding Eisenberg eclipsed even that. If you even knew a little about the character of Lex Luthor, you’d know that this was as far left-field as the casting could be. Luthor is often depicted as a suave, calculating and dominating presence; whilst I could just about see Eisenberg pulling off the calculating side, I really wouldn’t associate him with being either suave or dominating (especially when put next to HUGE men like Affleck or Cavill). But still, if Affleck and Gadot can overcome the negative buzz and create some pretty impressive fan bases, surely Eisenberg could do the same, right? Well, I don’t want to sound cruel, but Eisenberg doesn’t overcome the negative buzz; in fact, he pretty much proves it all correct. Now when I say this, I’m not trying to sound definitive; I know that many people genuinely liked Eisenberg’s performance and the character of Lex, and that’s fine seeing as art (in this case, performance art) is subjective. If you’re reading this review and liked Eisenberg, please leave a comment and tell me why; I’d like to see your opinion and whether there are any points I agree with. But there are three distinct reasons why I just didn’t buy Eisenberg’s portrayal or Luthor’s character. The first is that he’s just too flashy and over-the-top when compared to everything occurring around him; Eisenberg seems to be in a completely different film to everyone around him. The intensity of what’s occurring on screen almost all but dissipates every time he arrives on screen, with one exception (and even that’s problematic). The second, which is more the filmmakers’ fault than Eisenberg’s, is that nobody seems to acknowledge just how unstable Lex is; this is never more evident than in the scenes when Luthor clearly shows his insane instability and people not only shrug it off, but also continue to give him access to top-secret and incredibly dangerous technology (often without supervision). If most of the serious and supposedly intelligent characters continuously allow an obviously dangerous sociopath to run rampant, that’s a big problem for the audience when it comes to the suspension of disbelief. The third, and potentially biggest fault, is that Eisenberg is essentially portraying The Joker instead of Lex Luthor. Whilst it’s one thing to play the character of Lex Luthor with some added eccentricities, there are just too many similarities to Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker in 2008’s The Dark Knight (which is, in my opinion, still the definitive live-action Batman film). The twitches, the exaggerated speech, the attempts to replicate that performance’s masterful juxtaposition of dark comedy with slowly mounting dread… The filmmakers and Eisenberg are clearly trying to copy the success of that incredible character and performance, but it doesn’t work and instead comes across as a forced copy-cat (and this isn’t the only way the film comes across as an attempt to copy a successful comic-book film formula). Don’t take my word for it? Watch arguably the best scene featuring Luthor in the film, a rooftop confrontation, and keep your eyes peeled for three actions/character moments, two of which directly rip off aspects of the Joker from The Dark Knight and one which comes pretty close. Having the character of Luthor essentially be the Joker here is also egregious given that the latest portrayal of the Joker by Jared Leto is set to debut in this August’s Suicide Squad. In short, I’m all for taking some liberties with characters if it will lead to a stronger cinematic portrayal, but there are some things which shouldn’t be changed (I’ll bring this up with regards to Batman later). If I had a choice between seeing the traditional Lex Luthor or this twitching nut, I would have instantly chosen the traditional character and prayed that Bryan Cranston would have been cast. Even Eisenberg fans have to admit that seeing Cranston as the more sophisticated, charmingly maniacal incarnation of the character would have been a spectacular prospect.

But whilst the cast provides plenty of healthy debate material, one of the main reasons people would want to see a film like Batman V Superman would be for the action sequences, one particular sequence especially. And, for the most part, the action is terrific. The sequences depicting Bruce Wayne/Batman in action are genuinely thrilling, and are the most exciting set-pieces in the film for me personally (except for one which, although drenched in gorgeously grim imagery, doesn’t really amount to much in the story). The early scene depicting Man of Steel’s final battle from Bruce’s POV is particularly heart-pounding, and shows the vulnerability of humanity when confronted with such powerful forces. In fact, that’s a critical reason for why Batman’s action sequences are so effective; he feels like more of a human character than Superman by far, and the practical stunt-work prevalent in several of his action scenes only adds to the immediacy of Batman’s crusades. The final, huge show-down is also well-realised with some genuine crowd-pleasing moments, although the CGI can be underwhelming at points.

Now, let’s talk about the key battle, the one which is clearly laid out in the title; Batman V Superman. From a purely visual stand-point, this is an undeniably impressible face-off with several well-shot ‘ooh’ and ‘aah’ moments of visceral panache, and I do like how the odds continue to shift in each character’s favour. Unfortunately, I have one major criticism with this fight which thoroughly under-cuts any potential enjoyment; it doesn’t feel earned. Sure, we’re given some reasoning for why both sides want to fight each other, but it’s all pretty slim and feels more like the film-makers pulling the strings to get to the fight faster rather than the characters organically coming to blows. One of the character’s motivations for the fight, in particular, makes it less of a genuine battle of ideals from that character’s position, which essentially removes much of the drama and conflict. I’m also torn on the concluding note for the fight. On the one hand, it’s a cleverly pointed observation on an oft unnoticed fact which defines both characters. On the other hand, it’s easy to see why many people would deem it as an anticlimactic finale to such a huge and titanic show-down. Personally, I lean more towards the former than the latter, but I do think that a stronger conclusion was certainly possible. On the whole, I don’t think that the conflict between these two characters are well-established and strong enough to justify pitting them against one another so soon in this cinematic universe, therefore making the scenario come across as rushed.

This is where we come to possibly my biggest issue with the film, that being the rush from the filmmakers, Warner Bros and DC to catch up with what Marvel has accomplished. Here’s a big reason why I think Marvel have succeeded in their Cinematic Universe thus far; they have taken their time. After the success of Iron Man, they didn’t charge head-first into big, defining films like The Avengers or Captain America: Civil War. They instead took their time to build up to those event films, and whilst some films have moments where they seemed more concerned with teasing future films than in telling their own stories (looking at you, Iron Man 2), the collection of Marvel film have still ultimately succeeded in creating a large universe with numerous different connections and a terrific cast of heroes (and a few noteworthy villains). The upcoming clash between Iron Man and Captain America in Captain America: Civil War has been brilliantly built up over the course of several years through both the individual films for those characters and their prior interactions. Part of my excitement for that film comes from the fact that we’ve seen this conflict brewing for such a long time. So my question is; where was the build-up for the conflict in Batman V Superman? In DC’s haste to catch up with Marvel, they have foregone all of the time and care which Marvel puts into their products to try and immediately capture the same box-office magic. Ironically, this results in a two-sided problem; while the titular conflict is decidedly underdeveloped, the rest of the film is grossly overstuffed to try and keep up with the competition from Marvel. We have numerous sub-plots vying for time, some of which don’t hold up thanks to plot holes which only become more and more apparent upon closer inspection. And then we get the nods to the future of the universe. Whilst Gal Gadot makes a strong debut as Wonder Woman, it would have probably been better to wait until her own solo film next year to introduce her, as she doesn’t play much of a critical role in the titular face-off and therefore distracts from it. But at least she’s not the most obvious set-up for future films; no, there are so many references and appearances which are likely to mean little for casual viewers and which ultimately serve no purpose in this film other than to set up future instalments. Granted, there is one visually trippy appearance which I actually liked, along with a beautifully sombre appearance from a familiar face. But apart from those moments and the presence of Wonder Woman (which, as I said before, I still find problematic), any hints towards future instalments really didn’t work. As if that weren’t enough, some of these actively derail the story that this film should be telling. For example, in the final moments leading up to the main fight, the filmmakers suddenly drop a huge and clumsy chunk of set-up for multiple future films. The placement of that scene in the middle of the build-up to the big fight not only shows poor editing (an issue which is frequently apparent in the film), but that Zack Snyder, Warner Bros and DC seem to care more about the future of their Cinematic Universe than they do about its present state. And, if Warner Bros and DC carry on with that mind-set of putting the future above the present, their universe may not have much of a future to look forward to (as hinted at by the huge box-office drop Batman V Superman suffered over its second weekend at the U.S. box office).

So, with all of that being said, what are my overall thoughts? Decidedly mixed. It is one incredibly frustrating disappointment, taking what could be a grand piece of comic-book film entertainment for the ages and instead using it as more of a marketing ploy to get audiences interested for upcoming films. Even when the film looks like it’s going to do something different and shocking, the filmmakers back out at the last second. Funnily enough, I had a funny feeling they would do this on one occasion, and why was that? Because of an interview concerning Justice League. While the manipulative and greedy set-up for future instalments is a major issue, it’s not the only one I have. The evidently apparent plot holes, the lack of characterisation (especially for Superman), Cavill’s lacklustre performance as Superman, the under-use of actors like Diane Lane, Lois and Amy Adams being little more than a damsel-in-distress, the sensationally awkward performance from a miscast Eisenberg, the underwhelming main fight and the lack of convincing build-up for that fight, often sloppy editing… There are a ton of issues which severely impeded anything good I could take away from the film.

Even Affleck’s Batman, easily my favourite thing about the film, has a major problem in his characterisation. Whereas most prior incarnations of Batman have rarely killed, restraining from doing so to avoid becoming the very evil he’s trying to stop, here Snyder and writer Chris Terrio’s interpretation murders low-level criminals without blinking. Granted, Michael Keaton’s take on the character was similar in his occasionally murderous crime-fighting, but even he would flinch at how merciless Batman is here. Prior to writing this review, I was going back-and-forth on whether I could get behind this idea, and after much deliberation, I just can’t. It’s really dismaying that Snyder and Terrio felt the need to change something so defining for the character and offer very little verbal explanation for it; sure, we get that he’s world-weary and has been through a lot, but if he’s still intent on fighting evil and protecting people, shouldn’t there have been at least a small scene of dialogue explaining why he’s suddenly changed his methods? There is a very brief explanation, but it’s not enough to justify changing such a well-established part of the character. Batman going on killing sprees just makes what is already a very dark and grim film more so through an unwarranted level of brutality. The filmmakers may be trying to make an ‘adult’ superhero film, but by simply adding more brutal violence and death when it’s not called for (especially for a character like Batman, whose appeal mostly stems from his struggle never to stray too far into the darkness where his adversaries dwell), it ultimately reveals a somewhat child-like mentality.   

Now, does all that mean there are no good things to take away from Batman V Superman? Well, despite what the last few paragraphs of this review might have you believe, there are actually enough good things to warrant me offering a mild recommendation. Despite my issues with Batman’s murderous ways, the portrayal of the character is otherwise sensational and Affleck’s performance is amazing in every facet. Jeremy Irons makes a wonderful and unique Alfred, and the scenes between Irons and Affleck are terrific in illustrating just how much these characters have been through. The supporting performances from Fishburne and Hunter are superb, and while I think it would have been better for her to have been revealed in her own film, I still like Gadot as Wonder Woman and think that she gets some stand-out moments. Visually, the film is often captivating, with an enveloping gothic atmosphere and some expectedly stunning visual effects for the most part. To Snyder’s credit as a director, he creates some incredible sequences (not all of them being action set-pieces, either), with the opening depiction of the Wayne’s fate and a latter sequence involving Hunter’s senator being particular stand-outs. The musical score by Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL is not suitably epic and intensely exciting, but it also captures unexpected levels of poignant emotion and dread. The action set-pieces (with the exception of the main fight and a visually intriguing but narratively lacking sequence) are very well-handled, with the solo Bruce Wayne/Batman show-downs and chases being the most entertaining. And finally, while I haven’t discussed this prior, I will give Snyder and Terrio credit for attempting to create some good ideas and areas for discussion in the film (e.g. must there be a Superman?) They may not have entirely succeeded, but their efforts in that area should be given a little acknowledgement.

Final Verdict

Well, I realise that my thoughts on Batman V Superman are highly mixed, but then again the film is incredibly mixed. A lot of people hate this film and a lot of people love this film, but I can’t bring myself to do either. Instead, I can say that I found enough to offer a mild recommendation (although it might be worth skipping it in cinemas and just waiting ‘til you can watch it on a nice big TV screen). There is just enough visual and aural power, stellar acting and gripping action to make me happy I saw it once. However, the lack of anything I feel encouraged to revisit, coupled with all of the severe problems I have, means that it will be unlikely I have an urge to watch it again in the foreseeable future. If you disagree or agree, let me know why in the comments. In closing, I really hope that Warner Bros and DC learn not to charge so quickly into proceedings without following Marvel's lead and taking the time to get ready; as the saying goes, good things come to those who wait. And with Batman V Superman, they clearly couldn’t wait.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

10 Cloverfield Lane - Review

In 2008, a little film called Cloverfield hit cinemas. The defining fact about this production was that, up to two months prior, hardly anyone not involved in the production knew of its existence. A surprise trailer went viral two months before the film was released, and the Internet was set alight with theories about what the film may be about (stoked by the production company, who created a page for a company somehow involved in the film’s events). Come the film’s release, the reaction was decidedly mixed. Some audience members loved the experience which the film offered, whilst some were put off by the use of the now-popular ‘shaky-cam’ technique. Personally, I loved the film and still do to this day. I find it to be an utterly gripping, frightening, propulsive and brutal monster film. So, when a similar trick was pulled with that film’s ‘blood relative’ 10 Cloverfield Lane, as the trailer was released two months prior to the opening date of the film and caught everyone by surprise, I was thoroughly excited. And now I can talk about it (whilst taking care to avoid spoilers, of course)…

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up in an underground bunker after being involved in a serious car crash. The man who built the bunker, Howard (John Goodman) eventually reveals himself and tells Michelle why she is there; there has been an attack on the surface, and if they hope to survive, they must remain sealed in the bunker until they are certain it’s safe to emerge. With fellow survivor Emmett (John J. Gallagher), they must try to survive together. But is everything as it seems?

The first thing to say about 10 Cloverfield Lane is that anyone hoping for a direct sequel to Cloverfield should really temper their expectations. This is very unlike the 2008 film, so if you expect something similar, you may be disappointed. However, if you go in expecting a taut paranoid thriller, you may come away as satisfied as I was. 10 Cloverfield Lane is an expert study in claustrophobic tension before revealing its cards in a climax which may prove divisive, but which I thoroughly got behind.

It’s important to note that this is the first feature-film credit for Dan Trachtenberg, seeing as it might prove difficult to guess given his apparent ease and craftsmanship. It’s always difficult to make an isolated space interesting over an extended period of time, but Trachtenberg and cinematographer Jeff Cutter brilliantly shoot this film so that we not only experience the claustrophobia of the environment, but so that every character creates a real presence within that environment. The use of close-ups and wide shots to focus on both the individual characters and their thoughts and how they in turn are affecting the entire group are a critical ingredient in making the edginess all the more palpable. And when the space is meant to feel tight for the character, the audience isn’t spared; when a character is crawling through piping, you can almost feel the cramped space as if you were right there with them. Trachtenberg really has a great career waiting behind the camera, if this is anything to go by.

The cast here may be limited, but that allows for more focused drama and more opportunities for the three main actors to shine. Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes for a compelling heroine, as Michelle struggles with her inability to face tough situations (highlighted in a beautifully crafted conversation between her and Emmett) but showing the slowly building strength within her as she comes more to grips with what is really happening. This is a smart, likeable and relatable heroine, and Winstead goes a long way towards selling the journey which the character goes through. As Emmett, John J. Gallagher is effortlessly appealing; much like Michelle, Emmett is a character with regrets in his life, and Gallagher gives the character an undercurrent of sadness whilst doing a terrific job in emphasising Emmett’s determination to keep the tense atmosphere within the bunker even a bit lighter. However, it’s John Goodman who threatens to steal the show. Howard is morally edgy as soon as he walks on screen, and Goodman does a spectacular job walking the tightrope of emotions which would lead an audience member to be uncertain of his motives. In one moment, he can appear tender and vulnerable, and in the other he can be a flood of menacing aggression. It takes an actor of real talent to capture that uncertainty and keep it going for the majority of the running-time, but Goodman is one such actor and Howard is an intriguing character in that you’re highly uncertain where he stands. All three actors are tremendous and ceaselessly compelling in their scenes together, which is a mix of their skills and the excellent screenplay by Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken and Damian Chazelle.

The technical credits of the film are nothing to be scoffed at. Composer Bear McCreary (who is on a real roll with TV credits including The Walking Dead, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, Outlander and Black Sails) provides an eerily chilling musical accompaniment which expertly plays on the feeling of dread and uncertainty oozing through every frame. The sound editing and mixing also adds to the film’s intensity, with every small sound suggesting potential danger and every large sound (particularly the rumblings for above) seeming like an ominous hint of a great threat lurking outside the sanctuary. The editing keeps the film moving at an impressive pace, offering clarity for each character and allowing the atmosphere to develop without either rushing or dragging.

For best enjoyment of 10 Cloverfield Lane, I’d recommend watching the film with as little prior knowledge as possible. The film has some genuinely effective shocks up its sleeve, which are best experienced first whilst watching the film. But, whilst the shocks are important to the film’s success, I would also recommend seeing the film based on the sheer strength of the film-making elsewhere. The cast and crew fire on nearly all cyclinders here, and whilst the third act is likely to divide audiences, you have to be thankful for a film which not only shows so much skill in its construction, but which gives you something for hearty discussion. When both high quality and high potential for debate are combined, you know you have something intriguing on your hands.

Final Verdict

Whilst different to Cloverfield, 10 Cloverfield Lane is still a claustrophobically compelling thriller which is likely to offer audiences plenty to discuss. The main trio of actors are all superb, the direction is remarkably assured for a first-time feature film, the script is excellent and the technical credits are all impressively strong. The third act may prove divisive for some, but for this reviewer, 10 Cloverfield Lane offers unerringly tense and accomplished entertainment which proves immensely successful in almost every area.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5     

Kung Fu Panda 3 - Film Review

As far as movie series go, there hasn’t been another in recent memory with such a ‘judge by its cover’ title as the Kung Fu Panda series. And believe me, back in 2008, I was amongst those scoffing at the idea. That title and the trailers which had been released really didn’t make that film look like a must-see. But then the reviews started coming in, and they were really, really positive. Bolstered by this, I went to see it and, to my delight, I loved it. Not only was it gorgeously animated and filled with some of the best animated action these eyes have yet feasted upon, but it had a cast of genuinely lovable, interesting characters and thoughtful lessons which both the young and the old could take to heart. So, when a sequel was announced, I got excited. And come 2011, Kung Fu Panda 2 didn’t just equal the success of its predecessor; in this reviewer’s opinion, the sequel excelled the original in almost every way. The action was exceptional and almost non-stop (no word of a lie, I legitimately consider this to be one of the most action-packed films of the last decade), the characters were even more enjoyable, the villain was sensational (helped in no small part by the casting of the great Gary Oldman), the comedy was hysterical and there were at least two emotional powerhouse scenes which reportedly visibly affected many audience members (including yours truly). Kung Fu Panda 2 also did what many of the great film sequels did; it actively progressed the series’ story rather than opting instead for a lazy retread (there’s a certain irony that it was released in the US on the same weekend as The Hangover Part II, a film which virtually copied its predecessor note-for-note). Now, with the release of Kung Fu Panda 3, it’s interesting to consider just how surreal it seems that this idea would successfully spread to cover three films. But, having seen all three films, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Kung Fu Panda 3 sees the titular panda Po (voiced by Jack Black) living life to the full in his role as the prophesised Dragon Warrior. Fighting and living alongside his comrades the Furious Five, comprised of Tigress (voiced by Angleina Jolie), Mantis (voiced by Seth Rogen), Monkey (voiced by Jackie Chan), Crane (voiced by David Cross) and Viper (voiced by Lucy Liu), as well as his master Shifu (voiced by Dustin Hoffman), Po is the focus of adoration both from the Valley of Peace and from his adoptive father Mr. Ping (voiced by James Hong). But two serious developments are about to change his life. The first is the arrival of his real father Li Shan (voiced by Bryan Cranston) who, after losing Po as a child, is ecstatic to have found his son again; however, the new-found relationship between Po and Li causes friction in the relationship between Po and Mr. Ping. The second and more deadly development is the emergence of an ancient evil in the form of Kai (voiced by J.K. Simmons), an old comrade of Shifu’s master Oogway (voiced by Randall Duk Kim). Kai is intent on harnessing all of the ‘chi’ (the energy of the universe) which the martial arts masters possess, which puts Po, his friends and family in great danger…

First things first; this film is utterly gorgeous to behold. The colours are sumptuous and the visual details are wonderful. I saw this film in 3D and, while it may not provide the pop-out experience which many people associate with 3D presentation, the process provides gentle, gradual immersion into the experience of the film in a way which doesn’t feel forced or overdone. Out of the three Kung Fu Panda films, this is possibly the most visually stunning; special mention goes to sequences set in an otherworldly realm which evoke a spectacular and mystical grandeur.

Secondly, the action sequences in this film are delightful. Whilst not quite as plentiful as Kung Fu Panda 2 (which had over half a dozen fight and/or chase scenes), the action is still terrifically crafted. Given the acrobatic and fluid nature of what’s unfolding on screen, there are many natural opportunities for comedy, and almost all of the comedic beats hit their mark. However, when the action needs to be serious in both tone and spectacle, it manages to pull that off with equal aplomb. The stand-out action scenes come in the finale, which combines all of the different tones almost seamlessly to brilliant effect.

As with the other films, Kung Fu Panda 3 has a well-spring of unexpected emotion; there are several emotional scenes which have to do with the theme of family and how this can link to your identity. The real emotional meat of the film comes not only from the strong script but also from the stellar performances of Black, Cranston and Hong in the roles of Po, Li Shan and Mr. Ping respectively. Black is as lovably goofy as ever in the role of Po, and he is essential in making this ridiculous-sounding concept work as effectively as it has throughout this trilogy. He also shares great chemistry with his co-stars, whether they be friend or foe. Cranston is a wonderfully adept actor when it comes to comedy (indeed, one of his most well-known roles is the dad from the hit comedy show Malcolm in the Middle), which makes him a natural fit for the goofier scenes. But it’s in the more emotional scenes such as Li Shan’s heartfelt discussions with Po that Cranston really shines through, lending a relatable regret, pain and protectiveness to this new character which makes him instantly identifiable. However, one of the under-rated stand-outs of not only this film, but the entire trilogy, is James Hong as Mr. Ping. Not only is he a comedic blast (his annoyance with Li Shan, something which could have easily been over-played, is instead understandable and genuinely funny), but he also perfectly captures an individual who’s trying to stay in his son’s life and who’s trying to keep up with the adjustments which come with this major change. These three characters and their interactions are key to what is the trilogy’s greatest success; taking characters with inherently cartoon qualities and imbuing them with vibrant personalities which have realistic and relatable qualities.

Despite those three performances arguably being the centre of the film, it would be amiss not to mention the superb supporting cast. First, we have J.K. Simmons as the villain. Quick note; it’s interesting that Simmons seems to have a theme this year of appearing in films featuring anthropomorphic animals (he also voiced Mayor Lionheart in the wonderful Zootropolis). With that out of the way, Simmons is wickedly good here. The villains of the series (especially Lord Shen in the second film) have a blend of the mirthful and the menacing, and Simmons is equally skilled in both areas. Whilst there are some great opportunities for humour both from and towards the character of Kai, Simmons never lets us forget the character’s anger and lust for revenge. Whilst discussing Kai, the character’s design and powers are also effectively portrayed to illustrate his threat (particularly how he utilises the characters he defeats in battle). While he’s not quite as compelling a villain as Lord Shen, the character’s design and Simmons’ portrayal go a long way in ensuring that Kai is a thoroughly entertaining antagonist. As Shifu, Dustin Hoffman is just as reliably great as ever; his mixed exasperation/admiration of Po is just as present here, and Hoffman has a lot of fun with Shifu’s sly humour whilst also maintaining the character’s presence and authority. As usual, the actors voicing the Furious Five are under-utilised (with the exception of Angelina Jolie), but at least most of them are given something of interest; Cavid Cross’ Crane and Seth Rogen’s Mantis share some fun chemistry and Jackie Chan gest some great lines as Monkey, with Lucy Liu being the only one with noticeably little to do as Viper (and when I say little to do, I mean virtually non-existent). Jolie once again brings a cool aloofness to the role of Tigress, but she feels like less of an important character this time around; it’s interesting to note that four of Jolie’s adoptive children also provide voices in the film (and, to their credit, they all do decent work), which may have been a bigger reason for Jolie’s involvement this time around. Stepping in for the Australian comedic actress Rebel Wilson, Kate Hudson is solid as the flirtatious panda Mei Mei, but her role is fairly small and arguably not as memorable as it could have been, despite some strong scenes. Finally, Randall Duk Kim is marvellous in his return as Master Oogway; the character’s role in the film may be brief, but it is still pivotal and Kim’s performance evokes a wealth of wisdom, humour and passion which is instantly lovable.   

It's important to say a word for directors Jennifer Yuh Nelson and Alessandro Carloni. Both of these directors ensure that the series continue to defy expectations which audiences may have, helming a film with exquisite beauty, genuine scale and a heart as big as its titular character. While Yuh Nelson deserves more credit in the overall arc of the series (having been involved from the very beginning and having helmed the second film), Carloni also deserves immense credit given that this is his first feature film credit. They are aided immeasurably not only by sensational visuals and the brilliant script from Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Burger, but also by maestro Hans Zimmer’s typically sublime musical score (special mention goes to the use of the instrumental motif for Imagine Dragon’s I’m So Sorry as the theme for Kai), which is equal parts exciting, moving and genuinely inspiring.

Are there some issues with the film? Absolutely. The depictions of some characters may stand out in an uncomfortable way for some audience members, as the argument could easily be made that they are simply there to be laughed at because of their capacity. I can’t speak for everyone, but I felt awkward watching these depictions and I know I’m not the only one. There are also several under-used characters. The complaint could also be made that this entry repeats themes from the other two entries, and whilst I agree with this to a degree, I’d make the counter-argument that these are good themes, which makes them a bit easier to digest more than once. But, as far as the negatives go, that’s pretty much all I can think of.

There is a very strong chance that Kung Fu Panda 3 will be the last entry in the series, and given the less-than-stellar box office performance, I think that will likely be the case. But if this is how the series must end, it ends on a wonderfully conclusive note. Jokes from the first film are revisited and given new spins, the themes surrounding family and identity are still present and the fantastic final scene serves as an exquisite capper. If this is to be goodbye for Kung Fu Panda, the series will leave behind a fantastic legacy and will continue to make those doubtful amazed by just how strong these films are not only as entertainment, but as gorgeous animated art.

Final Verdict

If this is the last chapter of the Kung Fu Panda series, the film-makers and cast really deliver something special which perfectly captures the appeal which the series has had thus far. The animation is sensational, the action is wondrously fluid and exciting, the comedy is hysterical for the most part and the emotional undercurrent is genuinely moving. The cast is exceptional and the directing duo handle the material with aplomb, partially thanks to an excellent script. Whilst some characters are awkwardly depicted and certain actors/characters are under-used, these issues don’t put enough of a damper on the experience to mar what is otherwise a wonderful potential capper for the series. Keep on Kung Fu Fighting!

Final Rating: 4.25 out of 5