Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

 

Incredibly, it’s now been nearly sixteen years since X-Men began the incredible (and somewhat exhausting) avalanche of superhero films that continues to this day. Since then, we have seen all kinds of comic book characters make the jump to the big screen, from household names like Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk, to relative obscurities like Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. But while the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gone from strength to strength, DC Comics has had a tougher time establishing itself as a big-screen force; it had a major success with the popular Dark Knight trilogy, but what DC really wants is a cinematic universe to call its own. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the first step towards achieving that goal, but does it stand up as a film in its own right? Let’s take a look!

After a quick run-through of Batman’s origin story (theatre, dark alley, mugger, gunshots, dead parents, well-full-of-bats, etc.) we jump forward in time to the city of Metropolis, where a helpless Bruce Wayne witnesses the destruction of a Wayne Enterprises building during Superman’s battle with General Zod from the end of Man of Steel. It’s an effective sequence that clearly establishes Batman’s issue with Superman, and we soon learn that Superman is to face a government investigation regarding his role in the destruction. Meanwhile, the villainous Lex Luthor has found some Kryptonite, and plans to use it as part of a twisted genetic experiment. Upon learning this, Batman steals the Kryptonite in order to destroy Superman once and for all, while Luthor manipulates Superman onto a collision course with the Caped Crusader.

As you can see, there’s a lot going on in this film, and I pity the poor overworked soul who had edit all of this together; not only does it need to establish a new Batman, it also aims to introduce us to the entire DC Universe, act as a sequel to Man of Steel, set up a future Justice League film, and provide a satisfying conflict between Batman and Superman. Whereas Marvel spent eight years slowly building towards a showdown between Iron Man and Captain America, Dawn of Justice has  to accomplish the same feat – and plenty of others - in just one film, and as a result the movie often feels jumbled and unfocused. There is an awkwardly place flash-forward scene in which a trench-coated Batman runs around shooting at people in a desert (?), as well as strange, shoehorned-in cameos from Aquaman and The Flash. At times it feels like the film is suffering an identity crisis, torn between being Batman v Superman or Dawn of Justice.

Happily, the last third of the film sees everything finally fall into place. Having spent the first two acts slowly (so very slowly) moving the pieces into place, the movie palpably shifts gears, cranking up the action while managing to tie all of the dangling plot threads together. This section of Dawn of Justice is truly a great spectacle, and redeems the film somewhat after the glacial pace of the early sections.

Pacing problems aside, where Batman v Superman really shines is in the performances. Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman is superb; you really get the sense that has been worn-down by twenty years of crime fighting in the frankly hellish Gotham City. His Batman is a truly frightening creature, and the scene in which he is introduced is like something out of a horror film. So bitter and vicious is this version of the Dark Knight that you wonder whether Bruce really cares about fighting crime at all, or if hunting down criminals is simply a means for him to vent his bottomless well of rage. Superman gets slightly less attention, but comes across as a man who only sees in black and white trapped in a world of grey areas. He is genuinely trying to use his powers for good, but cannot see that the consequences of his actions can often be devastating. The star of the supporting cast has to be Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, making the most of a small but effective role, while Amy Adams and Jeremy Irons give good performances as Lois Lane and Alfred Pennyworth, respectively. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor sometimes becomes slightly grating, but you can tell that he is totally invested in the role.

As a film in its own right, Batman v Superman is less than the sum of its parts; a collection of interesting characters and ideas presented in a strange and incoherent narrative. However, as an introduction to the DC Universe the film is much more successful. Director Zack Snyder and his team establish a world that is distinct and different from the Marvel Universe, and create endless possibilities for sequels and spinoffs (the prospect of solo films for Batman and Wonder Woman is particularly exciting). The sometimes excessively dark tone might have to be toned down in future instalments (the moment when someone finally cracks a joke, a full two hours into the film, is quite jarring), but it is good that DC is trying to find a unique identity for its films as opposed to simply aping the Marvel approach, which must have been tempting. It is entirely possible that, once the DC Universe is fully established on the big screen, we will look back on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as the beginning of something truly special.

Licence To Kill (1989)

Bond with a difference

What do you expect when you go to see a James Bond film? There are some things that surely have to be there: action, romance, gadgets, a supervillain, a vodka martini, at least one huge explosion. It’s a time tested formula and it works. But are all of these ingredients necessary? How many of them could you remove before the film stops being a Bond film at all? These are the questions posed by Licence To Kill, arguably the most unique and different film in the series to this day.

The story is unusually straightforward. After Bond (Timothy Dalton) and his CIA friend Felix Leiter (David Hedison) foil the plans of drug baron Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi), Sanchez has Leiter attacked and his wife murdered. Devastated, Bond resigns from MI6 and sets off on a mission of personal revenge. Assisted by DEA agent Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell), 007 infiltrates Sanchez’ operation and attempts to bring it down from the inside, in the process uncovering Sanchez’ plan to expand his drug empire across the Pacific and into Asia.

This may sound like a generic action film plot, but that’s what separates it from previous 007 outings. In Bond films the story can often seem like an excuse for Bond tojet around the world and do various exciting things; it doesn’t matter if you don’t follow the plot too closely. Here, the story is front and centre, and it unfolds clearly and logically. Particularly intriguing is the way in which Bond infiltrates the villain’s organization and manipulates him into eliminating most of his own henchmen. This plot device is by no means new – films such as Yojimbo (1961) and its Italian remake A Fistful of Dollars (1964) pioneered it – but it had never been used in a Bond film, and in this new context it feels fresh and exciting.

Another change from the norm is the presentation of James Bond himself. Having spent twelve years with the debonair Roger Moore in the role, audiences were reluctant to embrace Timothy Dalton, whose performance in The Living Daylights (1987) was the polar opposite of his suave predecessor. Dalton plays Bond as a reluctant assassin, who seems vaguely disgusted by the job he performs with such efficiency. It’s a realistic, grounded performance, and of all the Bonds Dalton is the only one I can imagine existing in real life. I can even imagine him doing mundane everyday things like laundry, grocery shopping, filling out a passport renewal form, voting to elect a new local member of parliament, going to the dentist, etc. Is this a good thing? It depends on your point of view, but it’s certainly different.

Dalton is ably assisted by a strong supporting cast of colourful supporting characters. Carey Lowell’s Pam Bouvier is a strong and capable field agent who, refreshingly, is portrayed as Bond’s equal and saves his life on more than one occasion. Robert Davi as Sanchez makes for a uniquely complex villain, ultimately undone by his outmoded sense of loyalty. Especially impressive is Benicio Del Toro as Sanchez’ henchman Dario; it’s a small role, but Del Toro just exudes menace. Comic relief is provided by the dependable Desmond Llewellyn as Q, rewarded for 26 years’ service with a large supporting role.

Licence To Kill is and always has been my favourite James Bond film. While it does occasionally drift into generic late-80s action-movie territory, it more than makes up for this by mounting a committed attempt to do something fresh and new with a series that many felt was passed its sell-by date in 1989. Unfortunately, stiff competition at the box office from Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade hurt the film’s drawing power (all subsequent Bond films have been released in the autumn to avoid competition from summer blockbusters) and complicated legal issues were to keep Bond off the big screen for the next six years, by which time Timothy Dalton had moved on and the series was ready to change course with Pierce Brosnan in the lead role. In 2006, Daniel Craig became James Bond, playing the secret agent in a hard-edged style very similar to that introduced by Dalton two decades before; this time the public was ready, and Craig’s performance won praise from all sides. We can only imagine what course the series would have taken had Dalton’s time in the role not been cut short, but we still have Licence To Kill: a daring and hugely rewarding James Bond adventure.

Keith Richards: Under the Influence (2015)

The Man Behind the Myth

In 2010, Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards released Life, his long-awaited autobiography. The book was a great read for Rolling Stones fans such as myself, but only succeeded in blurring the line between Keith Richards the myth (a drug-fuelled rock & roll pirate with a guitar) and Keith Richards the man (his book includes a recipe for bangers & mash, and Keith reveals that he warms up for concerts by listening to Mozart). As much as Life seemed inclined to portray its central character as a bit of a cartoon character, it also hinted at a layered and sensitive soul who seemed slightly frustrated at how he had been pigeonholed in public perception. Under the Influence, despite its title, seems to prove that this is the case.

This documentary, however, is not simply a film version of Life, but the story of Richards’ long love affair with music. Framed by a discussion with Anthony DeCurtis about his new album, the film joins Keith on a musical journey to pay tribute to the styles that have influenced him over the years; from the scintillating electric blues of Chicago, to the dreamy country music of Nashville, to the earthy reggae of Jamaica. Along the way we meet friends and contemporaries such as the eccentric Tom Waits (who seems to be something of a kindred spirit to Richards), blues legend Buddy Guy, and guitar technician Pierre de Beauport, who is employed for the purpose of maintaining and keeping track of the hundreds of guitars that Richards owns.

 Keith’s travels yield many highlights. We see archive footage of the young Rolling Stones bringing the great bluesman Howlin’ Wolf to perform on American chart show Shindig!, in front of an audience comprised almost entirely of teenagers. What could easily have been a disaster becomes a triumph as the 6’3”, 54 year-old Wolf – dressed for church – wins the entire room over with a rousing performance of “How Many More Years?” in a wonderful moment.  Keith also takes the time to demonstrate how he achieved the distinctive guitar sound on the Stones’ “Street Fighting Man”, playing an acoustic guitar into a cassette recorder and then playing that into an amplifier. Most rewarding of all, however, is the sheer, unaffected joy that Richards evokes when playing music or discussing an artist he loves. It’s infectious, as if he always took care to keep his inner child alive.

The film is also a huge success on a technical level; it’s filmed beautifully, and the entire production has a feeling of intimacy and warmth. The soundtrack is unsurprisingly superb, and could easily have been released as an album. Director Morgan Neville also deserves credit for getting his subject to relax and feel at ease in front of the cameras – I imagine this must be quite a hard thing to do.

All in all, this is a lovely film that I thoroughly recommend. Keith Richards comes across as no more or less than a happy old man, content with his lot and at peace with his eccentricities (the glass he drinks from has a skull & crossbones on it. Maybe he is a pirate after all!). In simply getting him to play music and talk about things he is passionate about, Morgan Neville has painted a clearer picture of the man than a 564-page book. Well done!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

The release of a new Star Wars film is always a massive event accompanied by a huge amount of build-up and expectation. In 1999, it was rumoured that people were purchasing tickets to films they had no interest in seeing for the purpose of viewing the trailer for Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. After the trailer had screened, they would get up and leave the cinema.

Thankfully, living in the YouTube-era means that no one had to go to such lengths to see the trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but the level of anticipation for this film has been just as high; it features the three core members of the original cast (Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford), plus a new generation of actors intended to be the stars of a new trilogy. Looking backwards while moving forwards is always a risky business, but can The Force Awakens pull it off? In my opinion… no, but there is still a lot to enjoy.

The plot is chiefly concerned with the search for Luke Skywalker. Luke is now the last Jedi and being hunted by an evil movement called the First Order and its figurehead, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). A map revealing Luke’s whereabouts is entrusted to a droid named BB-8, who chance brings into contact with a scavenger named Rey (Daisy Ridley) and stormtrooper-on-the-run Finn (John Boyega). Their attempts to escape the clutches of the First Order lead them to Han Solo and Chewbacca, and soon they are embroiled in a daring plot to destroy a devastating space weapon.

As I mentioned, there are many things in The Force Awakens that work really well. The performances from Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are committed and lively, and the friendship between Finn and Rey is believable and well-developed in the first part of the film. The movie also features a good sense of humour which lightens the mood at just the right moments, and the special effects and CGI are spectacular without ever becoming intrusive. Perhaps most importantly, The Force Awakens really feels like a true Star Wars film, and often goes out of its way to evoke memories of the original series. This, however, is where the film begins to run into problems, and it often seems preoccupied with paying tribute to the past.

The first part of the film does a great job of introducing Finn, Rey, and Kylo Ren, but all of this is undermined when Han Solo makes his entrance about a third of the way in. From this point on, he is the main character, and the new faces are unfortunately side-lined. When the focus abruptly shifts back to Finn and Rey towards the end of the film, they seem ill-equipped for the job, having been relegated to supporting players for much of the second act.

It’s possible that The Force Awakens would have been greatly improved if Harrison Ford had been used sparingly. In the original Star Wars, the only big-name actors on board were Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing, but they were strictly used in support roles and never allowed to overshadow the lead actors (all of whom were unknowns at the time). The recent Star Trek films (also directed by JJ. Abrams) benefitted massively from small appearances from Leonard Nimoy as Spock; his presence served to give the films a measure of authenticity and weight that they would not have had without him, and yet he was not onscreen long enough to distract the audience from the real stars of the film. The problem here is that we just see too much of Han Solo, and while it’s nice to have him back, it’s time that could have been spent establishing the new characters.

This essentially sums up the fatal mistake made by The Force Awakens. Faced with a choice between striding into the future and retreating into the past, it takes the safe bet and turns into a tribute to the original trilogy. Magical flashes of the film that could have been (like Finn’s out-of-the-blue lightsabre battle with a stormtrooper) are outnumbered by endless references (Luke’s old lightsabre, Vader’s helmet, Chewbacca’s holographic chessboard, etc.) and too many characters come across as echoes of characters from the older films. Nevertheless, all the elements are here to make a truly great film, and hopefully the upcoming Star Wars Episode VIII will take full advantage of them.