Captain America: Civil War Review

The key to providing a franchise with sustainability is not dependent on how much money you throw at it, more so how much work you put into them. Marvels consistent hit rate is down to the seamless stories they’ve woven together across 12 films; their 13^th doesn’t prove to be unlucky and might just be their best achievement so far.

Civil War sees Captain America and his Avengers involved in a mission which leads to an incident where innocent lives are lost. As fall out from that, as well as their other destructive outings, the Avengers are to be put in check by secretary of state Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt), who imposes the ‘Sokovia accords’, those heroes that don’t comply will be considered criminals in the eyes of the state. Tony Stark, tortured by guilt is all for the act, Cap on the other hand is strongly against, disagreements lead to arguments which eventually lead to the Avengers splintering into 2 factions which will battle it out in the titular Civil War.

Similar to Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Civil War operates as a gripping thriller that’s tackling big issues, Captain America has previously battled Nazi’s and shady government agencies, but with the fight he’s picked here he might not necessarily be on the right side, and that’s the films major strength. There are no decisions being made for you here, no black and white, there’s no right side to choose, weeks after watching this you’ll begin to question whose side you’re really on. Stark’s side seems to come from a good place, but the oppressive nature of the accords act seems far too restraining in terms of stopping our heroes from being heroes. And with Cap, though he is usually the pillar for moral good, here he is blinded by his unwavering bond with his childhood friend turned murderous robot armed assassin, Bucky.

Despite being a Captain America solo film, this has the biggest roll call of any Marvel film yet, it is essentially a three hander between Cap, Stark and Bucky, but with a character list that includes 12 superheroes, it’s amazing that everyone seems to have their moment and not one of them feels left behind. Black Widow is back again and with her 2 closest team mates on the rival side, she is presented as the most divided of the heroes. Jeremy Renner’s supposedly retired Hawkeye turns up and essentially puts together Cap’s team. Anthony Mackie is Cap’s other BFF and for a brief period of the film forms an enjoyable trio with Cap and Bucky. Don Cheadle as War Machine is the other man in the iron suit, and as Stark’s closest friend he provides great camaraderie in fight sequences and moments of reflection in the quieter periods. Paul Bettany’s Vision and Elizabeth Olsen’s Scarlett Witch have some really well judged moments of domesticity as well as sharing their turmoil at coming to terms with their recently acquired powers. After the funniest performance in the MCU in his solo outing, Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man is a brilliant boost of comedy, given the funniest lines and possibly the standout hero moment of the film. And then there are the 2 newcomers to the party, in the form of Chadwick Boseman’s Black Panther, and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. Boseman, getting his solo outing in 2018, is a different beast in the MCU, as King of his native Wakanda, he is burdened with a responsibility like none of the others, he has drive and determination, but as his character develops he also becomes more rounded, and with a vibranium suit he’s also pretty handy in a scrap. Spider-Man makes a fleeting but memorable appearance here. Though his introduction to this universe is contrived and feels like a big jump in causality, it’s quickly forgotten the moment Tom Holland appears on screen. Though his screen time is brief, this quippy, fun, teenage web-slinger creates a Spider-Man that comic book fans have been craving, a Spider-Man that 5 previous solo outings have been unable to provide.

There’s also the introduction of the villain to the film, Daniel Bruhl’s Zemo. That name will ring bells with any comic book fan, but the approach that Civil War has taken with him is an entirely different one than expected. He’s sinister but not necessarily evil, he’s more of a schemer than a mastermind, and Civil War is so successful at casting all its characters in shades of grey that by the end you don’t entirely disagree with his actions.

A lot of comic book films mistake misery for seriousness, and while this film is serious in places it never loses sight of what these films should be, fun. The airport sequence where both sides face off against each other in spectacular fashion, is one of the best constructed set pieces put to screen. Destruction is meaningless if there isn’t anyone invested in it, and although it may look like chaos it’s incredibly well organised so that there are character beats to every scrap, plus you get to see Captain America get into fisticuffs with Spider-Man and who doesn’t want to see that?

People will complain of super hero fatigue, and who knows, next year will see Marvel start upping their yearly releases to 3 films, and that might start the weariness. However, audiences will never tire of going to see good films and the MCU consistently put out great ones, and with Civil War they’ve just put out their best. Next stop Doctor Strange. (5 Stars)

Hollywood - A Man's World

Hollywood – A Man’s World

There was a news story circling the internet this week about the BBC’s new approach to having a diverse workforce, ‘one in six BBC stars must be gay, lesbian or disabled by 2020’, and there will also be an overhaul of the male dominated stations such as Radio 2. The story has led to a division, with some people saying that it’s a progressive movement forward and others saying that its political correctness gone mad (you know the type). The news, however you take it, shows that more mainstream entertainment services are attempting to become equal opportunities working environments, which then raises the question, how is the greatest entertainment service of the western world diversifying? Is Hollywood progressing? Or is it still a man’s world?

April 7^th 2016, still reeling after their $2billion box office smash The Force Awakens, Walt Disney Pictures release the first trailer for their new Gareth Edwards helmed Star Wars spin off film, Rogue One, due to be released at the end of 2016. In amongst Stormtroopers and AT-AT’s and Ben Mendelsohn in a fabulous white cloak, was the films lead, Felicity Jones’ Rebel fighter, Jyn Erso, for the second Star Wars film in a row the lead character was female. The response was on the whole fairly positive, but then the cracks began to show. “Another woman lead...Come on Star Wars, be original” complained one tweeter, “Ohhhh another white anorexic British girl leads a Star Wars picture. Exciting stuff” another sarcastically moans. This reaction was also present on the internet 5 months earlier.

Despite its record breaking success The Force Awakens still managed to provoke an angry response from some corners of the internet for featuring a female character as its lead. Screenwriter Max Landis, most likely fuelled by his 3 box office bombs that year, took to twitter in order to voice his anger, claiming that Rey (Daisy Ridley) was a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is a fan fiction term used to describe an idealised female character, something Landis described as “the worst fucking Star Wars main character yet”. Alongside Landis were other fans claiming that the film was pushing a feminist agenda. The negative response leads to an alarming misunderstanding of feminism, in no way can it be termed as a feminist agenda to have a lead female character, The Force Awakens has 3 female characters, one is an existing franchise character, and another is only ever seen in full Stormtrooper body armour. From what’s been shown in the, albeit brief, Rogue One trailer is a similar number of leading female characters. Percentage wise, Star Wars is still an absolute sausage fest. In terms of Rey being a Mary Sue, her idealised perfection is no more prescient than Luke’s was in the original trilogy, so why is it only a problem when it’s a female character?

This sexist reaction isn’t something localised just to Star Wars. 2015 saw the release of George Miller’s blistering Mad Max Fury Road, despite its overwhelming outpouring of critical and audience love, once again it provoked a negative reaction from some corners of the internet. The complaint in particular was that the film had pushed its main character to the side in order to tell the story of a group of female characters, in particular Charlize Theron’s Imperator Furiosa. Then there’s the recent vitriol that has confronted the 2016 remake of Ghostbusters.

God forbid that someone remakes an 80s film and actually tries to do something different, Paul Feig’s remake replaces the male comedians of the original with 4 female comedians. The 4 stars of this version are Melissa McCarthy, Kate Mckinnon, Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig. Jones and Mckinnon are 2 of SNL’s strongest players, and McCarthy and Wiig are 2 of the biggest comedic actresses working today, particularly McCarthy whose previous work with Feig has been some of the funniest comedy in recent years. Unfortunately for Feig the original Ghostbusters success was apparently down to the fact that it was male comedians, that is, if you believe the fans. “Ghosts worst enemy, butch lesbians” wrote one person, “all female cast, PC gone mad” wrote another, “women need to stay in the kitchen and leave the ghostbusting to us” voiced one particular arsehole, “Oh dear, a feminist version of Ghostbusters has been made. I do hope some of the ghosts are transgender or disabled just to tick all the boxes”. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of villainy and scum than the Facebook comments section. The worse thing about this response is that it has the potential to scare production studios from making films of this ilk again, the initial reaction to the first Ghostbusters announcement faced such anger, that it seemed to send Columbia Pictures into a knee-jerk reaction to announce an all-male version only a week afterwards, smoothly done guys.

Major studios are producing anger and vitriol at their attempts at equal representation, but the fact of the matter is, they’re barely dipping their toes in the water. According to Doctor Martha Lauzen’s report on women in the film industry, only 30% of all speaking roles in 2014 were female, and even worse only 12% of identifiable protagonists were women. Lauzen’s report isn’t on cinema of 20 or 30 years ago, those statistics relate to films of only 2 years ago, what’s also evident in Lauzen’s report is how little these statistics change over time. There are only ever marginal changes of 2 or 3 percent, and not always an increase, over time periods of about 10 years. So not only are women not being represented fairly on screen, but there also seems to be little effort to change this.

It’s obvious that the industry will be able to provide the market with more female led mainstream projects if they allow women filmmakers to make more films. However women behind the character are treated just as bad, if not worse, than those in front of the camera. Lauzen’s report identified that in 2012 women made up only 18% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors on the top 250 highest grossing films. Comparing those statistics to those of 14 years earlier shows there has been no change, which means 14 years with zero progress.

At the 73^rd Academy Awards the nominees for best director were, Stephen Daldry, Ridley Scott, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh and Steven Soderbergh, needless to say that with his odds slightly higher Soderbergh took home the Oscar. That year director Mary Harron had done exceptional work with her adaptation of American Psycho, not only did the academy not nominate her, but they nominated the same male director twice in the same category. This is more less the most indicative example of how women just aren’t being given the same chances that men are. Just look at the rapid rises that male directors make in the industry. Take the careers of Gareth Edwards and Colin Trevorrow, both direct small independent sci-fi films (Monsters and Safety Not Guaranteed), on the back of those films both are then given big studio projects (Godzilla and Jurassic World), and on the back of them both are given a Star Wars film to direct (Rogue One and Episode IX). Why aren’t studios knocking on the doors of Ava DuVernay (Selma) and Marielle Heller (Diary of a teenage girl) to offer them big marquis releases? There have been steps in the right direction, Warner Bros Wonder Woman film will be helmed by female director Patty Jenkins, and Jenkins herself replaced fellow female director Michelle MacLaren on the project. Those events however have an undercurrent of sexism to them, the project being a female character the studio looks for a female filmmaker, and how many other studio projects can you name where a female director has replaced another female director? Similar to Marvel studios only hiring Ryan Coogler when they had a black characters story to tell, this feels like a studio saying, yes you can make films, but you’re a female so you can only make a female story, real progress would be if either of those women were offered a Batman or a Superman film.

So maybe the BBC’s dynamic approach to their recruitment process is actually the best way forward. Dr Lauzen’s detailed report has shown that little has changed when the studios are left to operate as they have been for decades before. Toes have been dipped in the water and anger has come in response, but the only way those negative fans are silenced is through persistence. There is every chance that Hollywood can be representative of not just men and women, but of all different sexualities and ethnicities. Hollywood has a lot of work to do but there’s enough talent there to create an equal opportunities workplace, who knows, we might one day see a blockbuster film led by a black, homosexual female, we’re a bit away from there yet.

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

For as long as comic books and superheroes have been around there have been two constants that are arguably the most loved and most ingrained into popular culture, announced 2 years ago Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice features both on screen together for the first time, and the V of that title asking the question, who’d win in a fight?

                The film follows on from 2013s Man of Steel, which for all its faults was a pretty decent way to restart the Superman story and give somewhere to kick on from. Batman V Superman opens with a re-treading of familiar ground as we bare witness once more to Bruce Wayne’s parents being murdered, if it had to be done again though, at least Zach Snyder had the thought to do it as a stylish credits sequence, presenting it with enough originality to make it seem worthwhile. The film then jumps into a Rashomon style revisit to Man of Steel’s explosive finale this time looking at it from the perspective of Bruce Wayne as the human cost of that destruction is witnessed and the seed is planted for Batman’s animosity to Superman. It’s an exciting opening with an interesting idea that establishes the nature of this films Bruce Wayne fairly quickly. So far so good then. It’s at this point where things begin to take a turn, a sharp turn in fact, a sharp turn that bounces down a rocky ravine and tumbles off the edge of a cliff.

                The film begins to bounce around incoherently for what feels like a life time, there are entire plot strands that don’t seem to amount to anything and moments that feel completely out of sync with the rest of the film. Most frustrating of these incoherent moments are the bizarre dream sequences which slow what is already a slow film to a grinding halt, and add nothing to the film other than more confusion. After this aimless bouncing around for a couple of hours we get to the big fight. After the ridiculous smashing and crashing of Superman V Zod in his last outing, Snyder should be commended for showing some element of restrain in the fight, but despite the long run-time leading up to the fight it still doesn’t feel in any way that these characters actually do hate each other and the fight ends up feeling perfunctory, particularly with a mind boggling writing decision that leads to them becoming BFF’s. Then Wonder Woman turn’s up (that’s right she’s in this too) and the three of them team up to fight a big energy monster thing called Doomsday in a very loud and explosive finale.    

                There exists within this mess elements of the film you want and it's not entirely without merit. For starters I don’t believe that any of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of Zack Snyder, the incoherence comes from the script, but stylistically the film is quite sound and there a frequent moments of visual beauty. Ben Affleck’s Batman (Batfleck) is the most impressive aspect of the film, others will bemoan the fact that Batman, previously depicted as the high watermark of moral crime fighting has actually turned into a bit of a psychopath here, but within the context of the film it works, and his moments of fighting are the most impressive in the film. In her fleeting appearance as Wonder Woman, Gal Gadot does enough to make you want to see her in a solo film (much to Warner Bros delight). It’s a shame then that other female characters are a bit blah, particularly Amy Adams’ Lois Lane who spends most of the film getting rescued from falling or drowning or potentially being shot by African terrorists. Performances elsewhere are also unimpressive, Holly Hunter as a senator and Scoot McNairy as a Superman ‘victim’ are ably performed but their characters and sub-plots are woefully underwritten. Then there’s Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman. Whether Cavill is a dull actor or not is debatable, but the Superman that has been created here is tedious to monstrous proportions, long gone is the beacon of hope depicted in comics for the last 80 years, is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s the incredible sulk. Then there is the small case of Academy Award Nominee Jesse Eisenberg and his new interpretation of Lex Luthor. He is without a doubt the most irritating screen villain of the decade, it’s not entirely his fault as he is lumbered with irritating monologues that are meant to sound profound but really don’t say anything at all, but Eisenberg’s twitchiness and his hammy nature really don’t help elevate it. Luthor also suffers from having the most underwritten motives of any screen villain, it will be weeks later and you still won’t quite be able to work out what his plan or endgame was.

                The completed vision of this film is properly ludicrous, which in a way could have been very fun, but if it was meant to be fun then the film definitely isn’t aware of it because it is far too po-faced. There’s no suggestion that all superhero films have to be a laugh a minute joy ride, but the very nature of men in tights fighting bad guys is inherently absurd and if there isn’t a least some small acknowledgment of that then the film becomes unintentionally irritating and monumentally dull.

                What’s most disappointing about this is that it feels like it was very close to being a good film, but in the end it has the feel of a project where 50 people came up with 1 interesting idea each, and then they decided to put them all in, but forgot to work out how to string them together. What started out as a Man of Steel sequel has been retrofitted into a Batman V Superman film that will also see the dawn of the Justice League (all briefly feature in this). By forcing the Justice League so early rather than taking the time to build to it Warner Bros have created a complete mess of a film that could have been so much more, fingers crossed for Suicide Squad though right. (Low 3 Stars)

Hail Caesar Review

The Cohen Brothers have forged an odd career, for every Fargo and No Country for Old Men there’s a Burn without Reading or A Big Lebowski. They do sinister with comic undertones, and then just out and out silly, they’re an acquired taste and if your ear isn’t quite tuned to their sensibilities then there’s every chance that you just don’t get what makes them so great.

                Hail Caesar centres on Josh Brolin’s Eddie Mannix, a fixer for a Hollywood studio in the 50s, work is building up for him as he’s dealing with troublesome films stars as the studio try’s to bring about their latest production, Hail Caesar. Things are complicated when the star of the picture is kidnapped and held for ransom by a group of Hollywood communists. The plot is essentially, and also deliberately, ridiculous. This isn’t a film that’s based on plot though, that’s merely there to throw us head first into this wonderful classic Hollywood which oozes with charisma and charm. The film is a collection of very funny moments, ably performed by very talented actors, all loosely strung together with a nonsensical plot. Fortunately for the sake of the film those individual moments are glorious. There are few modern films that allow for a 10 minute long Channing Tatum dance number inspired by On the Town, it’s also incredibly self-indulgent of the Cohen’s to have a big synchronised swimming number, but the charm of these scenes give them a pass. Josh Brolin holds the film together, and George Clooney gets laughs as the idiot movie star Baird Whitlock, but the film is stolen in its entirety by the hilarious performance of Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle, the sweet and lovable Hollywood western star who unfortunately can’t act. A scene between himself and a director trying to get the correct pronunciation of a line is both stupid beyond belief and also laugh out loud hilarious.

                It’s fair to say that if you weren’t already a fan of the Cohen’s to begin with, then Hail Caesar is a wonderfully silly and glorious love letter to the golden age of Hollywood, and for days later you’ll be repeating to yourself the line ‘would that it were so simple, would that it were so simple’. (4 Stars)

this isn’t going to be the film to win you over. However

Deadpool Review

Superhero films are now populating cinemas so densely every year it’s amazing that, to this point, there hasn’t be a case of superhero fatigue setting in. Different studios are all taking different approaches with the quippy fun over at the Disney owned Marvel Studios being the undisputed box office daddy. The latest  superhero outing comes from 20^th Century Fox, who after their disastrous Fantastic 4 reboot last year have taken a risk this year in the form of the violent, sweary, frequently masturbating ‘merc with a mouth’ known as Deadpool.

                Deadpool has actually been on screens before in the not so impressive Wolverine solo film, but here he is finally given his full due, R rating to boot. Deadpool focuses on the story of mercenary Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) who after being diagnosed with terminal cancer enters into a program to heal himself, which unfortunately mutates him, though he is now empowered with regenerative healing he has physically changed, meaning his appearance is not befitting of the former sexiest man in the world , described at one point ‘you look like Freddy Kruger face fucked a topographical map of utah’. Deadpool is also undeniably insane, other heroes have rules about killing, Deadpool’s only rule seems to be to have fun whilst you’re killing.

                Its fair to say that this isn’t like other superhero films, for starters the film is very meta, in that the character of Deadpool is aware that he is in a film and breaks the 4^th wall to speak directly to the audience. There are moments where Deadpool, being played by Ryan Reynolds makes reference to the fact that Ryan Reynolds is playing him and how uncool that is. Deadpool also makes constant references to other superhero films, making one wonder how if this film does become a success in what way is this ever going to be able to fit into other 20^th Century Fox properties?

                There is a lot of fun to be had with this, Ryan Reynolds was born to play this role, his quick wit really brings so much to the comedy of this film and lines like “shit spackled muppet farts” and “chrome cock gobbler” are frequently funny. Unlike the PG-13 exploits of other caped crusaders, Deadpool is often gloriously violent which brings a new dynamic to this universe. The problem however is that the film is nowhere near as smart and ground breaking as it thinks it is. The 4^th wall breaking very rapidly becomes smug, it takes shots at other films for their inferiority forgetting that if it wasn’t for their existence and success, a film like this couldn’t even exist. It also uses the 4^th wall breaks as a mask for what is essentially a very formulaic film, it’s a film where the hero has to save the damsel in distress from the villain. The villain in this case is Ajax, who even by the low expectations of superhero villains still disappoints because of how utterly dull he is. A problem also lies in that outside of Deadpool himself there aren’t any characters that really register, Deadpool is such a big character that no one else is really left any room.

                There’s no question that this film is going to be a success, but no matter how much audiences love it, they will never love it as much as it(3 Stars)   

loves itself.

Spotlight Review

In a year when Messrs Innaritu and Miller have been descending into the frozen wilderness and causing carnage on the fury road, Spotlight director Tom McCarthy brings us down to earth telling the true story of the Pulitzer prize winning journalists of the Boston Globe, and their ground breaking story of systemic child abuse among the catholic clergy in their city and beyond. There’s something so impressive about seeing a film that doesn’t rely on any overzealous artistic flourishes to mask potential flaws, instead it’s a film that hangs entirely on the strength of its story, and Tom McCarthy does a brilliant job at condensing the events into a seamless narrative. Seeing the Spotlight team in action reminds you of the cinematic intrigue of investigative journalism, the endless interviews and meetings and researching shouldn’t be cinematic, but just as audiences were engrossed in Woodward and Bernsteins work back in All the President’s Men so too are they invested emotionally in the investigations of the Spotlight team.

                The emotional investment is in no small part down to the brilliant performances from a cast on top form. After a career redirection last year in the Oscar winning Birdman, Michael Keaton brings a stoic if occasionally weary nature to his team leader Robby. Brian D’arcy James and Rachel McAdams as Matt and Sacha do really strong work, particularly M

cAdams whose character takes on most of the interviews with the victims and manages to pull off the tricky balancing act of pushing for answers and being aware of the sensitive nature. Mark Ruffalo will be taking a lot of limelight given that his performance as Mike Rezendes is definitely the showiest of the bunch, but he never plays anything too big, Mike is passionate but it never feels forced, when he eventually cracks and loses his temper, it’s entirely deserved. The one performance that will be under-appreciated by most, is Liev Schreiber as The Boston Globe’s new editor Marty Baron. Marty is the start to this whole story, he’s an outsider, he’s not from Boston, he’s a Jew in a heavily Catholic city, and it took an outsider to look at something and see that it didn’t seem right. Schreiber gives one of the most wonderful understated performances there’s ever been, everything is small smiles and slight nods, or furrowed brows and minor head shakes, it’s the type of acting that can only really be picked up on film and it’s a treat to behold.

                McCarthy has created a very strong picture that works because of the emotional level that it registers with people. It’s a film that rests on its story, and Spotlight rises or falls on how interesting the story is. Fortunately this is a story to get you angry and passionate and eventually fill you with pride for the willpower these people showed for their search for the truth. (5 Stars)