'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' review

"The most disappointing gladiator match in the history of the world"

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the latest DC film that sees two of the most iconic characters in popular culture, Batman and Superman, come to blows on the big screen in the blockbuster follow up to Man of Steel.  With two leading characters that have over 75 years of success each behind them, and with the current superhero boom in cinema, you'd think this film would be a lock for an absolute success. Well...

Superman's actions in Man of Steel pissed off the wrong Bat.

Batman v Superman follows the introduction of a new Batman (Ben Affleck) and the development of his rage against Superman (Henry Cavill) following the mass destruction that resulted from the Kryptonian invasion. As Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) begins to fan the flames of the world's paranoia of a godlike being, the tension between the two heroes reaches a tipping point that results in an epic battle. In theory, it sounds fantastic. But problems begin to arise as the film bites off more than it can chew. It attempts to introduce Wonder Woman, lay the foundation for the Justice League, show at least three different visions and changes the game in the third act by throwing in a new source of conflict for the heroes. It's not long before the massive film begins to creak as all the narrative threads fail to tie together neatly. Trying to follow all the different threads might get a bit much for some audience members, especially as character motivations get muddled relatively easily. The actual reason for the titular fight given is pretty dumb and balances out to something that a thirty second discussion between the characters would have resolved. The resolution isn't much better. It's a shame that a week prior to the film's launch, Marvel's Daredevil recieved it's second season and entertained fans with twenty minutes of dialogue between rival superheroes. Batman v Superman would have benefitted from a simple standpoint such as conflicting ideology between heroes, rather than throwing every possible reason for the heroes to fight at the audience. The film is also merciless to any audience members unfamiliar with comic books. It seems to assume the audience knows these characters and more already, with full two minute scenes sometimes suddenly occurring that don't tie in to the main story and that feels like they'd just confuse the general audience rather than enhance the experience.

Ben Affleck does a fantastic job as Batman.

Luckily, one of the strengths of the film are the performances. Cavill is still a great Superman, but there's little room for him to expand much on what we saw from his solo film. Ben Affleck makes a fantastic Batman. You can feel the rage bubbling deep within him at all times. The only problems I had with the Batman character spawned from the script rather than the actor, such as how loose he can be with Batman's usual famous moral code. Gal Gadot makes for an interesting Wonder Woman, but there isn't a lot for her character to do within the film, and to be honest the story would remain practically unchanged if she was cut. Jeremy Irons is a fantastic Alfred, and this characterization of him is wonderful. The combination of Affleck and Irons made me hope we can get a solo Batman film soon to see the two in a better story. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of the iconic Superman villain Lex Luthor is definitely a different one. I think my problems with Luthor were the directing and writing of the character, and less with Eisenberg, as the character frequently seems over the top and more in line with a villain such as Riddler over Lex. It seemed a strange move in a film where everything is serious to include such a wacky villain, especially given Lex's characterization in the comics. There are glimpses within the character that I like though, and I'm hopeful any future installments would flesh this out and give us a Luthor closer to the comics.

Wonder Woman impresses in her cinematic debut, albeit a brief one.

Zack Snyder, the director, has proven at this point how visionary he can be with his directing on films such as 300, Watchmen and Man of Steel. But this seems to be his main strength, as he fails to balance all the characters and pieces of the plot, but makes for a nice looking fight sequence. Quite worrying, considering he's attached to Justice League, due out next year. Perhaps Warner Bros. need to consider an alternate director to handle such a large cast, and keep Snyder around for his visual eye. Even then, some aspects of the fight sequences look strange in this film, such as a lot of whip pans in the climactic fight hiding some of the action. Speaking of visuals, the film looks great for the most part, but sometimes suffers from sloppy CGI, mainly in the "surprise" climactic villain that the marketing team for the film revealed three months before the film was due. The film's tone is also extremely dark. This isn't a point I hold against the film, but I mention as warning: this isn't much like Marvel's recent films, or even Nolan's Batman. I can't imagine a lot of kids enjoying this. On a positive note, however, the Hans Zimmer / Junkie XL score was a particular highlight of the film, with the bombastic music matching and often exceeding the epic that Snyder tried to mash together.

Batman v Superman doesn't live up to the hype. 

In conclusion, Batman v Superman is a crushing disappointment. Snyder and Warner Bros feel like they're firing on all cylinders to put out everything they can to lay groundwork for next year's Justice League film so they can begin catching up on Marvel. The film is bogged down by subplots and side characters and dreams and visions and easter eggs that the build up to the fight often becomes more tedious than enthralling. The biggest disappointment comes from how much good is buried within this film. A wonderful cast, some fantastic ideas at considering the psyche of these two characters and how the world would react to them, and a slew of mostly fantastic action beats. Luckily, the problems with this film are mostly isolated, so there's still hope for future DC films such as 2017's Wonder Woman and Justice League. Unfortunately there's not a great deal that works in Batman v Superman to satisfy the audience until then. I still recommend that you check this one out for yourself and form your own opinion, especially comic books fans. There's enough that works to make the ticket price feel worth it, even if it falls short. Zack Snyder has tried to construct a deep, meaningful superhero saga that is as concerned as much with the inner workings of the characters as it is with cheekily winking towards comic book fans at what's to come. For that, I give him credit. But as 300 once showed, Snyder works best with a simple story and a lot of chances for fantastic action sequences, making you wonder how fantastic a streamlined Batman v Superman could have been.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  -  4 / 10

'London Has Fallen' review

Things that Fell during this film: London and my Attention Span

London Has Fallen is the sequel to one of 2013's White House attack films, namely Olympus Has Fallen. I never saw Olympus Has Fallen, but given that I imagine the connective plot between it and it's sequel wouldn't be a major selling point, coupled with the fact a few people told me it was a good time, convinced me to give London Has Fallen a shot. It follows Gerard Butler as a Secret Service agent protecting the President of the United States (Aaron Eckhart) as he assembles with the other world leaders in London to mourn the Prime Minister. And then London falls. Can Gerard Butler save the day? If you genuinely need that answered, this movie might be for you. 

Gerard Butler Has Fallen (from interesting roles such as Leonidas in 300)

London Has Fallen is being described by many as a dumb 90's action film made in the modern day, and it's hard to disagree with. The plot is paper thin with a few stumbled attempts to pad out the narrative and characters and connect them to modern events. But the problem is you've seen almost everything this film can throw at you better somewhere else. It rests lazily on overused character arcs such as "Gerard Butler needs to survive to get back to his pregnant wife". I don't know if there was a lot of character development in the first film and this one has decided to ride on that, but there was none evident here. The story, other than a minor sense of dread when you get bored and your mind wanders to "what if London actually fell", offers the audience absolutely nothing. Perhaps the most obvious example of the useless plot is that the film claims that something the President authorized and caused by accident started the villain's motivation, only for the film to allow the exact same thing to be used as a triumphant win in the later stages of the story. I would like to chalk this up as a reflection of how our governments will keep making the same mistakes, but there's not a bloody chance. 

The Unique Selling Point of the Film Has Fallen (because it's all in the trailers)

Speaking of bloody, I'm completely aware that talking about character and story with a film called London Has Fallen is utterly worthless. So let's talk about the action. I'm writing this review only a day after seeing the film, and I'm honestly struggling to remember a lot of the action. The actual scenes of London being destroyed, which you can find in the trailers anyway are done pretty bland and fail to impress. A bit worrying given that is was the one and only unique selling point of the film. I have a vague recollection of a helicopter getting shot at by missiles in a strangely edited and weird scene. They drive cars at one point in a paint by numbers chase scene. And the climax tries to clumsily fool you into thinking it's used one long impressive shot. Absolutely nothing stood out positively from an action standpoint. The only time action ever did stand out was when it stood out negatively, such as scenes in which our 'hero' literally says "Go back to Fuckhead-istan" and executes a man, or when he tortures someone, for the president to ask "Was that necessary?" and him to respond "No.". The action scenes were just unimpressive and bland, which isn't what a film of this nature should be aiming for. Furthermore, despite holding a '15' certificate here in the UK, none of the action was even close to the level you'd find in such films as 'Deadpool', with the certificate seemingly only coming from the previously mentioned very brief scene of torture, and the fact that 70% of Gerard Butler's lines had him growling a variation of "Fuck!" (the other 30% consisting of variations of "Get down, Mr. President!").

Morgan Freeman's Bank Account Has Risen (because he'll do anything for money)

In conclusion, while there are one or two minor positives to the film, such as a great yet criminally underused Angela Bassett, there is just no real reason to check out London Has Fallen. It's a bland, derivative film that considers itself more exhilarating and charming than it should, and you'd probably be served watch just about any other similar action film. There were people in the cinema who seemed to be having a good time, including one particular guy on the literal edge of his seat. So maybe there is an audience for this film. But I can't imagine many people who have seen pretty much any action film in the past will find anything here they couldn't get better elsewhere, except for shots of London landmarks being destroyed, which are pretty much all in the trailer anyway. For me personally, after London Has Fallen criminally bored me, I cannot say that I will be hotly anticipating Olympus Has Fallen 3: Help I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up.

London Has Fallen  -  2 / 10