Marvel Studios are doing well, of that there should be no doubt. One of the reasons for their continued success is that various chapters in their continuing cinematic saga can be ascribed to different genres of film. Which is a polite way of saying that "superhero" is not a genre (just as "animation" also isn't). While all of the 22 MCU chapters so far are linked by the common thread of superheroes, The First Avenger is a wartime adventure movie, The Winter Soldier is a modern espionage flick, Ant-Man plays as a heist and Ragnarok a flat-out comedy. Thus lies their success. However, due to the house-style being a self-imposed 12A certification limit, Marvel are unable to properly tackle horror. And any aficionado will tell you that comics have been about the macabre for as long as they've featured caped vigilantes.
Warner/DC have tried of course, but their efforts to produce more serious, thought-provoking tales often have the opposite effect, with Dawn Of Justice being particularly troubled in its 'darker' sections. Ultimately, the answer turns out to come from neither of the major comic studios, but it's on DC's side of the fence we stay (kind of) for David Yarovesky's Brightburn. It's a gleefully sardonic look at the Superman mythos, but one where the young hero took a different path once adulthood came knocking, turning into humanity's nemesis rather than its saviour*1.
REMAINS
Written for the screen by Brian and Mark Gunn, the location of a Kansas farm remains but in a present-day setting, as Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) Breyer spend years trying for children only to be gifted one by a falling meteor. Raising the human-looking youngster as their own for a dozen years, the pair wilfully overlook some of Brandon's (Jackson A. Dunn) quirks, knowing fine well that he's not 'normal'. But a secret hidden in the barn draws Brandon through sleepwalking, and soon the usual puberty-petulance and childhood revenge fantasies are being matched with superhuman powers, a tonne of questions and no one to supply answers. Things are about to go south.
On the whole, Brightburn is an interesting ride and works well. Always at the accessible-end of the horror genre rather than being a hardcore gorefest (although there are a smattering of delightfully gruesome moments), it's still far more interesting than the reams of supernatural studio-horror which usually clog up the schedules. Yarovesky and The Gunns never quite give in to darker urges (even if their subject does), and there's a pleasant lack of clockwork jump-scare moments - instead often revealing the antagonist at the back of a room to slowly raise the tension, rather than have him suddenly leap out of the darkness.
CANDELABRA All of the central performers do well, playing their roles as straight as a semi-parody will allow. While the supporting cast could have been drafted in from any small-town horror, that's the way they're written and is totally in-keeping with the screenplay. At 90 minutes this is a tight affair, and it's perhaps surprising how long things take to really escalate, given the cracks we see appearing the first act. That said, the film never quite gets over the 'what if?' hump, and because it's overtly based on the legend most of its audience have seen in at least one form, direct comparisons are always at the front of the audience's mind. Because of this, it becomes difficult to enjoy Brightburn on its own merits.
And ultimately it's this question that the script fails to truly capitalise upon. The key theme of Brightburn should surely be one of nature vs nurture? How are Clark Kent and Brandon Breyer different? Breyer's adoptive parents are much younger than the Kents - did they fail in instilling the same values because of generational divides? Was Clark Kent's mixure of power and humility a product of its time, which simply couldn't happen again?
MILK WOOD We see Brandon eventually interacting with the malignant force in the barn, but is this an echo from the past? A pan-galactic communication from the present? A misinterpreted message due to Brandon not properly understanding the alien tongue? Watching the film from his parents' point-of-view, it makes some sense that the audience would never learn the true origin of their son. But if we're meant to be with Brandon for the whole journey, it feels slightly unsatisfying that we don't really learn from his side either: 'the kid isn't human and he just turns evil because he was always going to be evil'.
And if that's the case, it might as well be a manky old nun in a haunted painting. Because if the answer to your 'what if?' is just "yeah, a lot of things get broken mate", then was it a question which was properly asked in the first place?
THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY Brightburn is beautifully crafted in places, but in its current form will be no more than a novelty, an oddity, a spin on a classic rather than being great in its own right. A thought which is underlined by some truly appalling sequel-baiting in the final minute which I dearly hope was dropped into the edit as a pastiche of superhero cinema rather than a genuine punt at expansion.
But the fact that this tale of heroes-gone-bad is in cinemas at the same time as X-Men: Dark Phoenix tickles me greatly, if only because Simon Kinberg seems to wish that he'd made something even a quarter as interesting...
Re-play value on this may be limited, but Brightburn will be good to have on the shelf.
Let's not go mad.
Disagree, unlikely. Discuss at some length, yes.
There isn't.
Level 2: David Denman's in this, and he was in that Logan Lucky alongside Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver and Daniel 'TFA Stormtrooper' Craig.
*1 Although as one wag recently tweeted, "If I wanna watch an 'alternate' take on Superman in which he goes all kill crazy, I'll just watch Man of Steel.". And as much as I loved that film, I have to admit it's difficult to disagree at face-value... [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, this is definitely a film. (Warner Bros, you can have that one for the back of the DVD cover if you like). DC's cinematic interpreters bring their equivalent of Phase One to a head with the long awaited Justice League, featuring Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck's Batman saving the world from a horny god with three evil boxes*1 by recruiting The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and concocting a plan to exhume and resurrect Superman (Henry Cavill) to lend a hand. There will be scenes.
First things first, Justice League is disposable, undemanding fun. Mostly. Gadot and Miller are by far the standout stars, the former arguably bringing the film's only real sincerity to her role, the latter some much needed humour. Cavill is on slightly shakier ground, although that's largely down to how the Man of Steel is treated in the film, and Batfleck still doesn't get his moment in the spotlight, sadly*2.
Things get off to a staggered start as the team are introduced one by one, as well as the threat they'll be facing, and it's there we begin running into problems (see footnote 1). With the best will in the world, the whole thing reeks of its re-writes, asking more questions than it attempts to answer*3. The customary act-three carnage begins in act-two, followed by a dip that's far longer than the breath-catching pause needed. The resulting finale is a brightly-coloured CGI panic-attack, with the team becoming little more than NPCs in a game you're watching someone else play. I didn't not-enjoy the film, but I have to admit to not actually caring about a single character, situation or plot point therein. And that's not a good sign.
Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon try to show DC's world in chaos, and succeed better than I think they meant to. Much like Superman's upper lip, Justice League is an imperfect oddity that's making the best of a troubled production, but never quite convinces…
^^ I found this amiable enough to be a 5/7 movie, but I'm taking a point off for Superman's CGI'd upper-lip. A ridiculous situation with an inexcusable outcome*4.
*1 Probably best if you don't ask. Much like David Thewlis' Ares from Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf is a CGI'd one-dimensional baddie with only half-dimension of actual character (think of a crossover of Malekith and Apocalypse), chasing a trio of macguffins whose only purpose is apparently to evoke memories of Marvel's Infinity Stones and Tolkiens's Rings. Without going into any detail, let's just say that his eventual defeat is brought about by a crisis in the writers-room when they realise that they aren't allowed the cojones to have any of their Heroes™ actually deal a killing blow to a sentient being (man, beast, god, or otherwise). It's an insult to not only the audience, but also DC's flagship characters. Well done, guys. [ BACK ]
*2 Although he's off again in Justice League. If you remember, Bruce Wayne's raison d'etre for killing Supes in Dawn of Justice was that, and I quote, "if we believe there's a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Which is clearly mathematical (not to mention moral) horseshit. This time round he's learned his lesson of course, and during the discussion of digging up the body of Kal El with a view to bringing him back to life (don't ask), proffers: "If there's even a fraction of a chance it could work-". It's just as well Bruce inherited his fortune off his old man, because he sure as shit wouldn't win anything in a casino with that grasp of probability…
[ BACK ]
*3 To wit, and in no particular order of importance:
Q. Bruce Wayne and Alfred have quite a nice conversation near the start of the film about being left behind by a changing world. Was this going to be a running subtext at one point in the screenplay's development? Because it doesn't rear its head again.
Q. If Wonder Woman can move faster than bullets (shown in this film) and Superman can move faster than bullets (pretty much known anyway, I think), what exactly is The Flash bringing to this party other than sarcasm and millennial-angst?
Q. Why has Aquaman - the superhero who lives in the sea - got that straggly hair and beard? The barnet's not practical for swimming with, and he's getting out of the sea/river and just air-drying. He's going to smell like a wet dog most of the time.
Q. What the hell is Cyborg's dad playing at? Given that he's Miles Dyson out of Terminator 2, you'd think he'd know better than to arse around with robotics, 'trying to help'.
Q. Given that even the trailer throws in that gag about Diana Prince doing "nothing interesting" at the weekend, and the fact that the Bat-Signal can only realistically be used at night, why didn't Steppenwolf attack at 10:30 on a Monday morning? Or better still, during prison visiting-hours? The Justice League wouldn't be about, it'd be a piece of piss…
Q. Does… does Amber Heard think she's doing A British Accent™? Oh, mate… [ BACK ]
*4 Much like Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, it looks absolutely fine until the shot requires actual movement. Then it's like watching that devil-kid off the AA adverts all over again… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The third time may be the charm but before that, the second is confirmation. A confirmation that I enjoyed Dawn of Justice. A confirmation that it's got some great characters, great performances and great moments. And a confirmation that the film is still an undisciplined, almighty mess. A mess which held my attention for its two and a half gruelling hours, but only as my brain picked holes from scene to scene (far to many to list here, unfortunately)*1.
Much has been said and written about Batman v Superman by now of course, and even I have to concede the validity of most of the sniping (although not the petition-raising by entitled fanboys who don't seem to be able to differentiate between a director and a writer). But today, I found that the key to enjoying Dawn of Justice is trying one's damnedest to ignore Jesse Eisenberg and his part in it. A repeat viewing only reinforces how much he's clearly not Lex Luthor, to anyone with even the most civilian knowledge of Superman's nemesis.
But what we really get here is the combined fragments of a great Batman film, a mediocre Superman one, and a dreadful Justice League setup. The former shows great promise (although I still hold deep reservations about Jeremy Irons), and as much as I'd like to see Affleck direct Batman's next outing, I'd love to see Kevin Smith helm it more. Superman's a little trickier as he has far less story-time here (which considering the film is about him seems odd), and the scenes we do get are hampered by the Daily Planet drudgery that should really be sidelined into a weekly TV show. And the less said about the DC extended-universe being pimped by having characters watch clips of superheroes on a laptop, the better.
White Dawn of Justice is by no means one of Snyder's best films, I can't hold him responsible for the film which came out of the editing suite. The jumbled storytelling smacks of mid-production and last-minute re-writes, studio hesitation and focus-grouping.
And as fascinating as I find the final product, a movie that cost a hundred million dollars for each hour of screen-time should do more than leave me interested…
Oh, and it's also a hell of a lot easier to watch in 2D.
Oh, 'DC things'…
By this point, I imagine you either already have or definitely won't.
Not likely.
Not nearly.
Nope.
There is indeed.
Level 2: Ben Affleck was in 2003's Daredevil (lest we forget) alongside Jon 'Pre Vizsla' Favreau.
*1 Although two things:
1) That 'mark of the bat' thing being a death-sentence in prisons is fucking bullshit for a start. Those institutions run on reputation; a brand that says "I'm such a badass I could only be taken down by the Batman" is going attract attention, but hardly mark someone out as an easy target. Those two blokes that the news report says were killed were doing time as p*edos. I suspect that would have been the real cause?.
2) How long have Gotham and Metropolis been that close together? When the bat-signal goes up and Lois Lane's on top of that building in Metropolis, it's like less than two miles away. I know they're on the edge of town, but are you really telling me that the combined size of these two would be smaller than London? Really? Or are they more like Newcastle and Gateshead? That could explain the initial animosity between the heroes, actually. It's not until Doomsday shows up (from Sunderland, I imagine) that they can put aside their differences…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, that's a change of gear. Or rather, Dawn Of Justice is a change into several gears, all at once, for two and a half hours. Riding the cinematic clutch towards the Justice League, DC bring us a whole bunch of ideas and origins, all crammed into one 150 minute rollercoaster. And before I get properly started, I'll add here that the film kept me entertained throughout. Okay, it also kept me bemused and thematically motion-sick from time to time, but on the whole I enjoyed it*1.
The main stumbling block is that the story's trying to be in too many places at once and ends up flitting all over the place, even once the main plot-thread has kicked in. In trying to set up Batman, Superman's story falters and Wonder Woman's falls at just about every hurdle (and we all know Batman, of course, just not this Batman. Even if he's remarkably similar to Batman). Structurally, the film's a mess, and I don't know if that's down to re-shoots, re-writes or just taking two potentially great movies and cramming them into one which is less so. The film either needs to be much shorter or about 45 minutes longer, either would ease the strain.
There are also a few directorial issues that didn't seem to happen in the previous film. Laurence Fishburne is over-acting a cartoon version of the newspaper editor he played perfectly sensibly three years ago; Jeremy Irons forces himself to grimace through a wisecracking version of Alfred The Butler which suits neither the actor nor the character; and I've no idea why Jesse Eisenberg seems to think that the best portrayal of Lex Luthor would be channelling Jim Carrey's Riddler into the role, but Snyder appears to have agreed and has just let him get on with it, anyway*2.
Between the hyperactive story-threading, the shoe-horning of other DC properties and Bruce Wayne's anxiety daydreams, there's far too much going on here. Dawn Of Justice is not a great film, although there are great things within it. It's really a good second-draft which needs tightening up and trimming down.
Perhaps most ironically, DC have brought us a film which doesn't really do justice to the Superman we know, and certainly doesn't do justice to the Batman we don't.
Okay, it may not be Zack Snyder's Watchmen, but at least it's not Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. We should all be grateful for that, if nothing else...
All of the superhero movies at once, I think.
Go big or go home.
Sadly, I don't think it does.
And it does pain me to say that, even as a Marvel fanboy.
Not nearly.
Not at all.
There only bloody IS, yes!
Level 2: This film's got Scoot McNairy in it, and he was in Killing Them Softly with Ben Mendelsohn, who'll be in Star Wars: Rogue One later this year. Actually they were in Black Sea together as well, which is why my brain struggles to separate them since those films were where I saw both of them for the first time. Even though there's like this ten year age difference between them.
Anyway yeah, that. Look, I've been awake for 22 hours as I write this and I'm still too buzzed to sleep...
*1 I pretty much have to say this because I'm going to go on and pick it apart. But ultimately, it's a film I'll gladly watch again, even if that's just in prep for the sequel. I can see why the critics are mauling it, and as much fun as I had, I'd be hard pressed to actually disagree, put it that way.
*2 Oh, and further to Superman having My Two Robin Hood Dads, it turns out that Batman's parents are Maggie out of the Walking Dead and The Comedian out of Watchmen. Which explains a lot, when you think about it…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Man of Steel (second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 143 mins / Dir. Zack Snyder / Trailer
Superman's mum is hot. There, I said it. I mean his Kryptonian mum (no offence Superman's Earth mum). I'd noticed this last time I watched the film, but I'd forgotten how much until now. This seemed to be a running theme, in fact. I'd also forgotten how much I enjoyed Man of Steel. I didn't forget that I enjoyed it, of course, just how much damned fun it is. Even the run-time didn't bother me too much this time around.
Another thing which slipped my mind is that both of Superman's dads here are Robin Hood. If that's not the setup for a sitcom, I don't know what the hell is.
But yeah, I had great fun revisiting Zack Snyder's retooling of Krypton's last son. I love how much time we get to spend on his home planet at the beginning of the film. It's not a throwaway setup, it's an entire prologue and everything which follows benefits massively from its inclusion. And even if the last hour of the movie is essentially an extended fight scene, it's a one which doesn't let up.
Although really, Kal? Now you sigh audibly and snap Zod's neck? Before the cowering family in the corner are bisected, but after hundreds of thousands have been crushed under the collapse of Metropolis? Oh, alright then…
Still holding up well after a few years, Man of Steel is DC proving that they can play with the big boys. Or rather, proving that they are one of the big boys.
Tonally, it's somewhere between Chris Nolan's Batman and Tim Burton's Batman.
If you get the chance, sure.
More than.
It's certainly the best I've seen Cavill.
Nope.
There certainly is.
Level 2: This film's got Larry Fishburne in it, and he was in that Apocalypse Now, as was Harrison 'Solo' Ford.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
