Brent is Back: British Sitcoms on the Big Screen

Later this month, film audiences will either be left ecstatic or irritated at the unexpected resurrection of David Brent in the new comedy film David Brent: Life on the Road. First introduced in the seminal mockumentary series The Office in the early 2000's, the character was originally conceived and characterised as the archetypal 'Boss from Hell' at a boring, Slough based branch of the fictional Wernham Hogg paper company. Brent spends his time in the series terrorising his bored and unimpressed workers with his cringe inducing antics and his attempts to play up to the camera. From his realistic portrayal of such a scarily recognisable character over the course of the short two series', both the creator Ricky Gervais and the David Brent character have managed to achieve substantial success and a firm cult status in British popular culture, whilst the show itself is ranked highly amongst the cream of the crop of British comedy.

However, like many creators of such a successful property, Gervais hasn't been able to let go of his Frankenstein's monster just yet. A few appearances in Comic Relief skits and the American adaptation of the series aside, Brent hasn't been in the forefront of a series since The Office ended in 2003, but after a thirteen year hiatus he is now back in the characters first cinematic appearance. The film (set for release on the 19th of August) has Brent being shadowed by a documentary film crew yet again, as he travels up and down the country trying to break into the music business and achieve his dream of becoming a rock star. Gervais has stated that this film will catch the audience up on what has happened to Brent in the last 13 years, whilst also peeling back the layers on the "extraordinary, ordinary man".

Whilst the buffoonery, self-delusion and uncomfortable scenarios present in the series all seem to be in check from the trailers and TV spots, Brent being rebooted does open up the debate as to whether or not these iconic comedy characters are best off left behind in their TV roots? Cinematic adaptations of popular British sitcoms have never been particularly well received and are certainly not a recent tradition, having been hugely popular in the 1970s with everything from Porridge to Steptoe and Son getting a film adaptation, with generally negative results. The last few years have seen a similar trend on our screens, with Mrs Browns Boys, Bad Education and a reboot of Dad's Army all having cinematic releases and being critically panned, as well as a film adaptation of Absolutely Fabulous in cinemas now getting mixed reviews and Cold Feet returning to ITV soon after 13 years off the air. This is definitely turning out to be the year for bringing old sitcoms and old comedy characters back into the limelight, but is that a good thing?

The last canonical appearance of David Brent was in the 2003 The Office Christmas Special, where we see him trying to get by as a struggling salesman after being fired from Wernham Hogg. As well as this, Brent is living under the delusion that he is now famous thanks to the documentary, making a living off the 'fame' by making demeaning club appearances alongside a stream of other minor celebrities. As well as desiring fame in this two-parter, we watch Brent try to find love and a date for the annual office Christmas party. For one of the first times in the series you really get an idea of the tragedy behind the character, as we see his desperate need for fame and appreciation from those around him. These final appearances are tragic, and manage to finally humanise the monster that we had seen for the two series previous. In his last scene Brent finally meets a woman who gets along with him, and when pushed from yet another insult by his friend Chris Finch he tells him bluntly to "f**k off". As he poses for a photograph with his workers, he finally manages to achieve the impossible; he makes them laugh. And cut.

This final appearance for the oft derided character gave him an arc, and wrapped up the fantastic series in a neat bow. Not content with this ending apparently, Gervais has brought the monster back, and in doing so it could be argued that he has unravelled the perfect ending to the show and that character's own personal happy ending. Despite Brent's huge character faults, watching him have a sort of happy ending and a redemption was pleasing, and yet now we're here 13 years later, with the character being as much of a pr**k as he was in his very first appearance in the pilot. Does this insistence of bringing sitcom characters back in film adaptations undo the legacy left behind, and clever writing of the series's that they originate in? Does it also undo any development that the characters may have gone through?

One such example comes in the two film adaptations of The Inbetweeners. The Inbetweeners was a fantastic comedy series from Channel 4, that in the span of three series' showed the trials and tribulations of four sixth form students going through the awkward adolescent phase of life as they get drunk, sit exams and go through a series of humiliating sexual encounters that usually end in failure. Worryingly for the most part (for myself at least), this series was closer to the horrifying reality of being 17 than the sensationalist teenage dramas like Skins and One Tree Hill. What made the series particularly perfect was the wonderful cast and the chemistry they have with one another; Simon Bird as the sarcastic and pessimistic Will McKenzie, Joe Thomas as the love stricken and cynical Simon Cooper, Blake Harrison as the dim-witted Neil Sutherland and James Buckley as the immature and vulgar Jay Cartwright. The final episode has Simon having to move away to Swansea after his dad lost his job, and as a final farewell the boys go on an ill-fated camping trip to the countryside. After a series of escalating disasters that lead to Simon's car being destroyed and everyone throwing up in the tent, the four walk home whilst making jokes about Will's fit mum. The series finale opens up a hint that Simon and Carli (the girl he hopelessly loves) may have a future in an optimistic finale moment, whilst also sweetly showing the camaraderie between the four friends in a typically vulgar and hilarious way.

The film adaptation of the series is set a few months after the series finale, and like many film spin offs has a drastic change of location to escalate the situations and increase the humour. Transporting the action from South-West London to Malia, the film has the four teens go on a lads holiday to celebrate finishing sixth form before they all head off to University or employment. Despite the film admittedly being very funny and having a lot of great moments, the impact of the series finale is lost in a way by carrying the four characters story on. We see that Simon did (unsuccessfully) end up with Carli and never moved away, which were both big factors in the finale. This film ends with the four each finding suitable love interests, which is scrapped yet again in the sequel when their new girlfriends are quickly discarded as they go travelling across Australia. Both of these films have been relatively successful in the UK but have been criticised worldwide, with a general consensus being that they never manage to shake off the TV roots. This could also prove a problem with the return of Brent, who is so well established in Television that it's hard to imagine him leading his own feature. In bringing back these characters again and again in a cinematic format, it could be argued that it's never giving them a chance to grow up.

Films based on successful British comedies don't always have to result in damaging the existing source material however. In 2009 Armando Iannucci released In the Loop, a film loosely adapted from the incredibly funny political comedy The Thick of It. Like the series, the film takes a satirical look at the nature of politics, but in the film Iannucci explores 21st century Anglo-American politics and the Invasion of Iraq rather than the inner workings of the British Government that is predominantly seen in the television series. What In the Loop really manages to achieve and what makes it a great film in its own right is that it manages to find the right mix between using elements from the series correctly, whilst still remaining original and not relying on the success of what has come before. The incessant and inventive swearing, the clever writing and the presence of Peter Capaldi as the monstrous and iconic Malcolm Tucker are all in check, but you can tell this isn't just an extended episode of the show. Familiar cast members make appearances playing completely different characters and the story itself is radically different from anything that was seen in the show. A large portion of the film is also dedicated to the American side in this political conflict, which lead to the development of Emmy award winning show Veep a few years later. In this outing Iannucci manages to use his unique writing style and the fantastic actors cast to give a completely different and fresh look at the nature of politics than he'd done previously, and what we were given was one of the cleverest and funniest British comedy films of all time.

Only time can really tell as to whether Brent's return will be a revelation in the somewhat tired trend of TV to film adaptations and bring something new to the table and to the iconic character, or whether the film will fall short and be yet another sad attempt to recapture the magic of a successful show. With Gervais's writing history I would like to believe the former, I just hope that on the 19th we will have something more along the lines of In the Loop than Mrs. Browns Boys. Just please, don't bring back the dance...

'David Brent: Life on the Road' is out in cinemas on the 19th August 2016

The Ten Most Villainous Characters in Game of Thrones

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Legend of Tarzan Review

"You are Lord of the Apes, King of the Jungle. Tarzan. Tarzan"

Apologies for the radio silence for the last couple of months, with this being my first review of any new film release since 'Batman v Superman' for a number of reasons. Firstly, a few days after reviewing that complete turd of a film I was plunged into the final month of my third year University studies, meaning a stream of constant deadlines, no sleep and ready meal after ready meal. This all accumulated in a dissertation and a final project completed, luckily without me tearing my eyes out of their sockets and having just about preserved the last lingering remnants of my sanity. After that debacle finally came to an unsatisfying conclusion, I went on an impromptu two month trip across Asia, without a laptop to write on and only a handful of cinemas around that we could watch anything in the English language. 

Whilst travelling through Bangalore in South India however me and my friend managed to stumble across a small cinema down a back alley in a shopping district, showing the new American Action Adventure film 'The Legend of Tarzan'. Out of every film that I had wanted to watch this summer this particular release was very low on my priorities, and had almost slipped under the radar completely until I saw the obnoxiously large and insanely out of place poster of Alexander Skarsgaard jumping through the air to punch an ape in the face, inexplicably next to posters advertising the latest Bollywood releases of 'Sultan' and 'Azhar'. With a ticket costing 50 rupees (a little over 50 pence) and with a free afternoon to waste we decided to go regardless. We bought samosas and sat in a cinema full of phone lights, whispering and cheering. Perhaps this film could be one of the shockingly underrated releases of the year? I still remember 2015's 'Man from UNCLE' being far better than I had ever expected and one of my favourite cinema visits of the year, and being shocked at the negative reviews and it's flop at the box office. Maybe an inspired retelling of the classic Tarzan story with the man behind the final Harry Potter film at the helm could be a winning mix? In short, I was incredibly optimistic.

'The Legend of Tarzan' takes place a few years after the main events that transpired in the Tarzan story, as John 'Tarzan' Clayton (Alexander Skarsgard) adjusts to his new life as a member of the bourgeoisie elite of Victorian London and as the heir to the rich and prosperous Clayton estate, whilst being married to Jane Porter (Margot Robbie). When we first meet John he is sat stoically in a boardroom full of stuffy upper class British men (including the ever perfect Jim Broadbent) who extend King Leopold's invitation for Tarzan to visit the Congo as a special guest to see how the Belgians are developing the country. John refuses the invitation, wishing to leave his past behind him. He is swayed however when he talks to the American George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson) who believes that the Belgians are secretly enslaving the Congolese people. John's reservations are proved to be correct however when him, George and Jane travel to the Congo and Jane is kidnapped by the villainous Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) who is involved in a convoluted plot to deliver Tarzan to a vengeful tribe leader and be rewarded in diamonds, that the Belgians can use to fund their invasion of the Congo. With Jane kidnapped, Tarzan, George and a few tribesmen travel across the country through the perilous jungles, to rescue her and stop the Belgians enslavery of the Congolese.

The casting director for the film was obviously inspired by Tarantino in this romp, with regulars Jackson and Waltz both placed in this film playing a witty sidekick with a dark side and a creepy European villain respectfully. These are the two best performances in the film, but this is just based on their merits as actors alone and not on the way their characters in this film are written. Both of these characters are stock sidekick and villain characters only, and despite trying their very best neither actor gets anything out of these thinly written roles. This is the first thing I've personally ever seen Skarsgard in, and as a lead here he lacks any charisma, grunting his way through his lines and not giving us as the audience a hero we can care about. In the Disney film (which I was going to avoid comparing this film to but it seems almost impossible at this point) the animators, writers and voice actors worked very hard to slowly develop the Tarzan character into a protagonist to root for, so towards the end you care that he succeeds. They give him internal conflict, as he tries to decide between his life in the jungle and his acceptance by society. In the end he chooses love and family and his origins, and as the audience we care about his 'happily ever after' as he and Jane are likeable characters. This is called a character arc, which this adaptation makes good heed to shit all over. This version of Tarzan lazily relies on the fact that their audience already knows the character from other sources prior to viewing, and provides us with very little development, added onto a boring lead that is hard to relate to or care about. Margot Robbie fairs no better, spending most of the film acting like Elizabeth Swann in 'Pirates of the Caribbean', being linked to lazy imagery of Butterflies and waiting for her husband to come rescue her.

Technically the film is very average, with okay looking CGI (except for the gorilla's, which were fucking horrible) and costumes that whilst not particularly original or interesting do fit with the aesthetics of the time. The settings too aren't particularly inspired, but do manage to show off the beauty of the congo in a satisfactory way. The stand out sequence of the film is probably the opening, with the soldiers heading through the caverns and mountains and encountering the indigenous tribes people in an extraordinarily violent manner. This then cuts to London, which had the look of one of the Guy Richie 'Sherlock Holmes' films. It was only after this that everything went downhill, as plots became lazy and the characters became increasingly more bland and paper thin. The camera work is another negative in the film, with ridiculous shot choices used in a variety of scenes. In a sequence in the middle of the film where Tarzan, George and the tribesmen are deciding their plan to rescue Jane the camera swoops around them in a really distracting pan that was horrible to look at. This managed to take me out of the film even more than the lazy writing and poor acting did.

One of my biggest complaints for the the film comes with the tone. The tone is distractingly uneven, drifting between out of place humour (including a ridiculous ongoing gag about giving a Gorilla a blowjob and an ill conceived joke that a certain character was raped by a priest) to incredibly dark sequences (like the hero Tarzan breaking a Tribe leaders sons neck) to irritatingly light hearted, almost childish solutions to the problems at hand. A few seconds after one of the aforementioned Ape blowjob scenes Jackson's character, who had so far been used solely as simple comic relief against the stoic and devastatingly boring Skarsgard, goes into an awfully contrived speech about his part in the civil war and lamenting his actions after. With syrupy dialogue this sequence stands out as being almost like a parody of typical action cliches, but without even a hint of self awareness the scene just comes across as dumb and irritating. One of the major motivations of any of the characters comes with the tribe leader Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou) who wants revenge against Tarzan after the death of his son. The build up to this major confrontation is lazy and just as it builds towards a climax the confrontation is resolved in an unsatisfying manner. Whilst they could have really explored the complexities of these two characters here they instead decide to lazily push in a "he killed my mother" resolution that even Zack Snyder would roll his eyes at. The ending goes full Disney but without a hint of charm, having all the animals and people of the congo charge at the oncoming fleet and scare them away or something. Lots of cheers occur that are more obnoxious than the Gungans in 'The Phantom Menace' and  everyone lives happily ever after, besides those unlucky enough to be in the audience.

To be fair the film does start simply and quite interestingly, showing a different take on the overtold Tarzan story and relishing in its Victorian London setting, but unfortunately it quickly becomes bogged down in its own plot. Instead of just having this new story take place solely within the epilogue of the classic tale, the film insists on flashing back to Tarzan's past to follow the classic beats from the classic story whilst also treating the films audience like idiots. These flashbacks are tinted in this odd sepia yellowish hue that is off putting and ugly, and they are given to us at such random intervals that it distracts you from the weak story being told in the present. These flashbacks would be welcoming in a superior film, but as almost all of John's character development occurs within these seemingly random and non linear clips it just makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't just go for the safe option of developing a by the books Tarzan adaptation? Trying to do something different and original with such an established character is a bold move and one to almost be admired, but unfortunately the writers aren't able to establish their original story clearly without having to go back to the source story like a child refusing to take the stabilisers off their bike wheels.

Summary: Boring and charmless, I went into 'The Legend of Tarzan' with no expectations and still managed to be disappointed. Even the presence of Waltz and Jackson can't save this film

3/10

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... Cruel

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the second instalment in the DC Cinematic Universe after Man of Steel in 2013. Henry Cavill once again steps into the red and blue Superman leotard, and is now battling out with the other DC flagship hero Batman, with Ben Affleck filling those shoes after Christian Bales retirement from the character after 2012's The Dark Knight Rises. With an exciting premise that has two of the most interesting and iconic superheroes in popular culture duel it out in a battle of wits, honour, ideological perspective and a bare knuckled physical fight that explores what it means to be human and a hero, this manages to be one of the stupidest, humourless and most depressing movies of all time, with only small moments of brilliance managing to bring it out of the dirt. At the time of reviewing the film currently has a lower Rotten Tomatoes score than the absolutely fucking terrible Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and has dropped in sales of over 68% in the space of a week, one of the most dramatic falls in cinematic history. Over the course of this review I'm going to highlight firstly what I thought were the good parts of the film that really worked, and then the absolutely shit parts that made me want to tear my eyes out. I will probably reveal many spoilers throughout this review, so be warned.

Batman v Superman begins with the classic and iconic Bruce Wayne origin story, with the murder of both his parents. Whilst this scene is almost as tired and overused as the murder of Uncle Ben in the Spider-Man origin story, the event is integral to the development of Bruce Wayne as a character and the way that they handle the scene, silently with music over the top and using numerous interesting camera angles, is handled surpisingly well. The story then shifts to years later, where Bruce Wayne has been operating as Batman in Gotham for nearly 20 years. The planet-wide destruction from the Man of Steel finale is seen once more from Bruce's perspective on the ground as he desperately attempts to save the Wayne Enterprises employees from their building in the now decimated Metropolis. As he holds a recently orphaned girl in his arms and looks up at the two aliens battling it out in the sky, Ben Affleck shows all the characters fears, anger and hatred without having to say a word. This scene evokes a lot of 9/11 imagery in a way to incite emotion, but is still probably the best handled scene in the entire film. It is interesting to see one of these big scale action scenes that are common in big-budget, Roland Emerich style action sequences from the perspective of those on the ground, and you really get a sense of helplessness that Bruce Wayne feels in this moment despite his heroism. Even out of the cowl and cape, Bruce Wayne in this version is still the selfless hero and I really wish the rest of the film played out as simply, humanly and interestingly as this opening.

In fact almost all the way through the film the classic Batman character is very well portrayed. Whilst we don't get to see the character develop too much on screen, we as an audience understand his motives clearly (unlike almost everyone else in the film) and Affleck really taps into the character on an emotional and physical level, in a part he was born to play. The action scenes that he is involved in too are visceral, compelling and interesting. Even though this is a darker version of the dark knight, the older Batman is a far different take than is usually shown on screen and I can't wait to see the character become more rounded and developed in future films. Affleck's chemistry with Jeremy Iron's Alfred, now more of Quartermaster/partner in crime than subservient wise cracking butler, is one of the best parts of the film. It really is a shame that this second film in the franchise wasn't dedicated to developing the Bruce Wayne character, showing his heroics and vigilantism in Gotham City, his relationship with staple characters like Alfred, Robin and Jim Gordan, have Batman take on a member of his rogues gallery and have the finale take part during the big scale attack on Metropolis that was dedicated to the beginning of this film. This would have really set up the two characters initial differences and distrust of each other in a better way. Unless you are completely familiar with the characters story and origins you will be lost in this film, as Snyder leaves throws you into all the action in the middle and there are too many questions left unanswered than there should be in a film like this.

Another positive element of the film comes with the visual elements which are stunning and interesting; every frame looks gorgeous, the cinematography looks fantastic. One thing you can compliment Snyder on is his ability to visually tell a story, and Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman and the world they inhabit has never looked as rich and interesting. The music too, even though distracting in parts, is well constructed by the master Hans Zimmer. One of my favourite sequences in the film came in the weird, post apocalyptic nightmare where Batman, clad in a duster and goggles in what seems to be an apocalyptic wasteland, desperately searches for kryptonite to stop the now monstrous and evil Superman, who has destroyed the world after the death of Lois Lane. In a bloody and violent scene shopwing a battle between Batman and Superman's footsoldiers and parademons, Superman violently murders Batman. This is a visually interesting and unique scene, but it is such a shame that it comes from nowhere and is quickly discarded and forgotten about, a lot like almost every interesting scene in the film. Personally I would love to have seen a film as daring and interesting as this one scene.

Now for the negatives.

One of the major fault in the film is in the characterisation of Superman, our hero, and the characterisation of most of the other characters in both supporting and antagonistic roles, which all seem off in their actions or behaviour due to shoddy writing. When we first catch up with Clark Kent, AKA Superman, it has been a few years since the events of Man of Steel and he is adapting to the mantle of Earth's saviour and life as a journalist with the Daily Planet. In his Superman life many people across the globe worship him like a God but many more members of the government and the public see him as a threat. As a journalist he is also trying to uncover dirt on the Bat vigilante from Gotham, who he hypocritically see's a threat as his actions are outside of the law. After the saving of the ever endangered Lois Lane from a group of radicalists causes the death of many innocent civilians, Superman is called to a hearing from the government. The rescuing of Lois scene is shockingly gritty and grim, more akin to something from American Sniper or Zero Dark Thirty than a superhero film, with a photographer (possibly Jimmy Olsen) shot point range in the face. From a Superman story you'd expect the man of steel to swoop in at the last second to save everyone, but like in Man of Steel this Superman has a worryingly casual disregard for human life.

This interpretation of Superman is unusual and disconcerting; instead of being presented as a genuinely good figure fighting for hope and justice and the American Way like he has done in the past 80 years, here Cavill's Superman is brooding and grim in a way to get past the campy, pants over leotard version of the character, but in taking the character dark it makes him seemingly more alien than any other iteration of the classic character. Even in moments that should be very human, like talking with his family and with Lois, it all seems weird and out of place as neither Clark or Superman are a hero to get behind as an audience and we never see either develop in the slightest. Throughout most of the film I thought Superman was a creepy, power crazed fiend and his gruesome threats to villainous characters really out of character for an omnipotent figure of good. This can be seen best during a long sequence in the film where Superman travels the globe saving people. This, like many moments in the film, could have been one of the most exciting scenes and really highlight the good that Superman brings to the world, but the sequence is shown in slow motion and isn't shown as exciting or heroic but more of a burden to the all powerful Kal-El. At no point does the character seem to want to be a hero who saves people, and this makes the character even less relatable or likeable, and the events at the very end (which I shall cover shortly) even less emotional. It is shocking how little the studio and Snyder understand these characters.

This is the major problem with this entire film, and also with Man of Steel too; the characterisation leave a lot to be desired and character developments are minor and superficial and amount to nothing in the grand scheme of thing. Here especially they just seem to re-enact even more superficial moments from its predecessor. Yet again we see Superman wandering the globe in what looked like a cut scene from Man of Steel and talking yet again to Jonathan Kent for guidance in one of the most sickeningly tripe and stupidly predictable scenes in cinematic history. At this point in the film I was already fed up, and as Superman wandered the mountains I whispered to my friend how fucking terrible and awful it would be if the ghost of Jonathan Kent turned up to offer advice; how lazy that would be. And as soon as those words left my mouth the always wise and insightful voice of Kevin Costner started a dull monologue and I died a little. As usual the message was all over the place, did Jonathan even want Clark to be a hero? Everyone in this film says so and yet most of the last film had Jonathan saying how he didn't want his adopted son to take that title, even dying needlessly in the process. Either way this was yet another unneeded and overlong scene in an already shoddily constructed film

Amy Adams as Lois Lane was just as terrible and boring as she was in the previous film, as she is lazily thrown into scenes so Superman has more of an emotional connection to the scene. Her investigation of unique bullets is boring and stupid, her involvement in the fight between Batman and Superman is boring and stupid, her actions whilst Doomsday is on screen are also boring and stupid. At the end I feel nothing for Lois and Clark as a pair as their chemistry is forced and non existent. Lex Luthor wasn't as terrible as I was expecting from other reviews, and Jesse Eisenberg does an alright if sometimes irritating and overplayed portrayal of the iconic villain. Yet again, the problems with the character stem from the writing and the confusing and stupid motives of the character. The character wants to create a deterrent to stop Superman, get Superman and Batman to fight, create a monster to make up for his own feelings of inadequacies and blow up the senate as revenge for them not supporting his projects, whilst also creating his own bullets for some radicals to get their hands on illegal kryptonite. I may have gotten a lot of that wrong or missed out some things as this character genuinely made no sense whatsoever. He doesn't act as a physical or mental threat too much to the ideals of Superman, so why was he in the film? Eisenberg tries very hard but the character is too much of a joke and his motives too confusing to make him a particularly interesting villain.

One of the main things the character does is help set up the future DC Cinematic Universe, where it is revealed like an evil Nick Fury he has been keeping tabs on the 'meta-humans' of Earth, that are then uncovered by Batman. In one of the dumbest, cringiest, overplayed, overused and just fucking offensive moments in the film Batman and Wonder Woman open some files on Lex's emails where he has kept details on Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg and Wonder Woman, with the logos from the comics even attached to them which makes no sense. Did he design logos himself? Is he so passionate about fast man and frankenrobot and the mermaid that he designed them little logos? The lazy branding is actually one of the less stupid moments of this sequence, as in the files are HD quality images and video footage of the future Justice League members, which make up the most forced cameos I've ever seen in film that made me roll my eyes in pain. What would have worked better would have been case files without logos, and having grainy video footage hinting towards these future characters. The reason Lex has looked into these characters is unexplained and this moment just seems like a lazy teaser trailer for future films and. like almost every scene in the film, appears from absolutely fucking nowhere, and actually stops any excitement for the battle between Batman and Superman by appearing right in the middle of the build up. Whilst Marvel has had name checks or small cameos to incite excitement in fans in a lot of their films, this is a dumb piece of obnoxious marketing in an already dumb film.

And this is just yet another moment in which the structure of the film is shoddy and all over the place and helps remove any drama or intrigue from unfolding naturally. I can't help but compare the film to 10 Cloverfield Lane, the last film I watched at the cinema before this. Each little moment in that film lead to something; the main characters fashion aspirations, certain characters feelings towards one another, a photograph, a memory. They are all just small pieces of a puzzle to something genuinely interesting that got me emotionally invested in the story and characters. Here it is just disjointed random scene after disjointed random scene, with nothing adding up as it just evokes a depressing feeling whilst you watch the story unfold on screen.

The fight is actually quite exciting and interesting, playing out like a bar brawl between the two. But it is cut short in a really stupid way. Both Batman and Superman's mother have the same first name, and in what could have been an interesting angle to humanise Superman in Batman's eyes is overplayed and cringey, as we have to sit through watching Bruce's parents die again. TWICE. In the same film. As Snyder and Warner Brothers think their audience are complete idiots they have to show this scene again to confirm his mother was also called Martha, before Batman in the present says his mother was called Martha. All the build up to the fight ends and Batman changes his stance quickly with this new information. Batman then saves Martha Kent in a thoroughly entertaining and bloody way, before the final villain emerges.

Doomsday looks like shit and is one of the most wasted characters in the film. He looks like a Cave Troll from Lord of the Rings crossed with Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo from South Park, and is nothing but a big CGI mess for our 'heroes' to battle. Whilst this scene really highlights Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and her powers, it's all pretty by the books, hackneyed and boring. And after a kryptonite spear is thrown around a while the inevitable happens, Superman dies. Two years ago I watched a superhero film and I cried at the death of a tree that had three lines in the entire film. Last year I watched a superhero film and I cried at the death of a flying ant that had no lines. Here one of the most iconic and inspiring hero's from popular culture of the last 80 years who I have seen in numerous films and books dies and I felt absolutely nothing. Then the film refuses to end as everyone unites under the death of the fallen hero, but of course there's a hint that he may still be alive which removes any sadness or drama or controversy that may have come from the heroes death. Never have I seen a film this heartless, under developed and completely unable to evoke any sort of emotion in its audience.

This film is baffling. There are far, far worse films, and there are moments that are genuinely interesting and exciting, but with the amount of money and talent and aptitude that went into the production, and with material of the two lead characters spanning back almost 80 years, I just don't get how a film like this could be even slightly bad. Luckily many of the problems are self contained to this one story, which despite rushing and wasting several interesting storylines in order to make money hasn't completely destroyed the DC Universe. Film has never felt this depressingly manufactured, and I hope someone with an understanding of the characters and material can step in to save the sequels

Summary: This film is a weird, dark, disjointed and incoherent mess improved by impressive visuals and one of the best Batman's seen in film. Watch with incredibly low expectations

4/10

10 Cloverfield Lane Review

"Crazy is building your ark after the flood has already come"

10 Cloverfield Lane is the unexpected spiritual sequel to found-footage sci-fi film Cloverfield. Unlike its predecessor, which hinged its odd success off the insane amount of viral and word of mouth marketing that went into it months before its release, this film has taken possibly the complete opposite approach, only being announced to the world shortly before it's cinematic release and basing most of its marketing on a couple of trailers, TV spots and a tenuous link to an eight year old film. Luckily, 10 Cloverfield Lane far surpasses the technical skill and style of its predecessor in every way, and in taking the scale far smaller but the the thrills far greater makes it a fantastic film in its own right. It also works marvellously as an original film in its own right rather than just a cheap sequel. Over the course of this review I may delve into spoiler territory so be warned.

The film opens with the protagonist, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a trainee fashion designer, escaping her life in New Orleans and hitting the open road to rural Louisiana after an argument with her boyfriend. During her travels however she is knocked from the road by an unknown vehicle and awakes in a locked room chained to the wall without a phone signal. She soon meets Howard (John Goodman), an ex-military conspiracy theorist who saved Michelle after she crashed her car but had to take her to his underground bunker during the fallout of a chemical attack from an unknown assailant, apparently saving her life but meaning she is not able to leave the cellar. Also in the bunker is Emmett (John Gallagher, jr.), another survivor who befriends Michelle and who had witnessed the attacks first hand and fought to enter Howard's bunker after knowing of its location from helping him build it. The three come to an uneasy truce as they struggle to survive with no contact with the outside world. The film takes many turn sand twists as to who to root for and who is telling the truth in a series of escalating moments of drama and suspense expertly handled by the films director and screenwriter, before the films surprising and stunning conclusion that opens a new chapter to the Cloverfield universe.

Luckily with the telling of such an interesting and unique story like this the film-makers have opted for a more traditional method of film making over the handheld, found footage style of the original Cloverfield. That style, whilst innovative and different in the early 21st century and appearing as a unique way to add another level of realism to a film, now appears cheap and lazy in comparison to more traditionally shot films. Chronicle, Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project are perhaps the most successful in this found footage sub-genre, and it could be argued that many films done in this style, particularly the first two, would have been even more accessible and interesting as a story if shot traditionally. In spite of this being director Dan Trachtenberg's first feature, he really does a fantastic job at presenting the images on screen in a beautiful way. Despite the often limited space that the action happens within, the interesting and different angles really make every scene visually interesting and original. Whether it is the sprawling, empty roads of Louisiana or the cramped and claustrophobic cellar, each frame in the film is dynamic and interesting and it really is a pleasure to view on screen. Another element that really stands out is the sound editing, with rapid editing and quick bursts of sound really heightening moments of horror, making it incredibly intense and thrilling to watch even in small moments like a door being unlocked or an item being passed over the table.

The performances in the film are superb and can't be lauded enough, with John Goodman giving his best performance since The Big Lebowski in a tough role that is in equal parts gentle, tormented and terrifying, and a million miles away from his roles in the Monsters, Inc. movies. Mary Elizabeth Winstead carries her role incredibly well, and adds lots of layers of depth to what could have been a very two dimensional character in another, more poorly written film, and like The Force Awakens it is nice to see a female lead in a science fiction movie without being written or played as a stereotype.  John Gallagher, jr. too brings in a lot of heart and humour to what could otherwise be a very grim and solemn film. But what is better than all of these actors and characters individually is how they act and mesh together, and as a trio they make up one of the best and most solid casts of any film in recent memory. Some of the best moments in the entire film surprisingly are those with no stakes and no horror where the characters simply talk about something trivial or something from their past, and we really start to learn more and genuinely care and understand these characters, without the need for any heavy handed flashbacks or unnatural monologues or soliloquies, which is sadly hard to find in a lot of modern, mainstream films.

But what really sets this film apart from a lot of others is just how clever every moment and every scene is. Information is revealed slowly and at a steady pace to build to a genuinely satisfying conclusion, after a constant change in loyalties and small details revealing big secrets. Each piece of the film runs like clockwork. I love the fact that so many questions were left unanswered at the end of the film; what happened between Michelle and her boyfriend to make her run away? What really happened with Howard and the kidnapped girl? What happened to Howard's family? And what has happened to the rest of the world? In the end none of these things really matter over the simple story of survival against all odds and our hero finding a purpose in life. In another film not answering these key questions would diminish the films effects, but in giving the audience only a tiny window into this unique and massive world it really helps build anticipation for potential sequels, a lot like how the first Alien movie showed only one alien against the small crew of Nostromo and each further sequel brought new, exciting elements to the films universe. Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Michelle in my opinion is the 21st centuries Ellen Ripley, and I can't wait for more of the Cloverfield world to be shown in future films. It's good to be excited about original franchises again!

Summary: A clever, terrifying, funny and genuinely innovative film that is sure to have you on the edge of your seat in excitement and anticipation. Prepare to be unexpected.

10/10

Deadpool Review

"You're probably thinking "This is a superhero movie, but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fucking kebab." Surprise, this is a different kind of superhero story."

Deadpool is the first in a long line of Superhero films scheduled for a 2016 cinema release, and is based on the origin story of the popular eponymous anti-hero from the comic series by Marvel comics. Many people would roll their eyes at the prospect of yet another new superhero film, with the genre oft criticised due to the huge amount of films slated for release over the coming years and the huge cinematic universes built around these comic characters. It seems to be a genre that is only getting more popular, to the stage that it is getting pretty damn hard to avoid these films in the current cinematic landscape. The Superhero phenomenon is often compared to the similar influx of Western movies in the 1950s and 60s, in which many of the popular films produced were westerns, all vaguely imitating each other to make as much potential money at the box office from film audiences. This fad eventually died out towards the end of the 60s and like many other  trends in cinema, another popular genre or type of film took its place and so on. Now the Superhero genre undoubtedly holds that crown in audiences hearts.

But unlike many Superhero films that are produced, Deadpool comes as a surprising breath of fresh air in the genre due to the fun the creators have with the source material, as well as there being a lot there for broad film audiences but with tons of nods and references for the die hard fans. Another thing that really sets this film apart from others of its kind is the love and passion that went into every aspect of production, and bravely doing something different in a genre unfortunately full of imitations of current popular trends. In the following review I will be going over the films plot in depth and its possible affect on the future of Superhero films, so be warned of potential spoilers from here on out.

First thing to probably mention to audiences unfamiliar with the character of Deadpool is that he really isn't anything like the other Superheroes that appear in films like The Avengers, to the point where he really can't be categorised as a superhero at all, despite the red and black suit not looking a million miles away from something Spider-Man would wear. Entered into the same Weapon X program that Wolverine was given his adamantium skeleton in, the mercenary was given incredible healing abilities essentially making him immortal, but lost his sanity in the process. Incredibly dark, amoral and funny, the character acts as a mockery of the genre and pop culture as a whole, with his fourth wall breaking and jet black humour setting him drastically apart from the other characters in the Marvel universe. Due to these factors the character has always been viewed as a risk from a film making stand point, and attempts to make the film have been quashed at all times with producers not daring to create a film based on the character to an almost complete lack of funding. From all of these factors it seemed like fans would never get the Deadpool film that they desperately wanted. One thing that sets this apart from other films is that this isn't just a simple cash grab from lazy producers and executives whoring out a popular character and bankable property to make a lacklustre disposable film that will make them a lot of money, but it is more a project of passion that the story tellers really wanted to tell.

Shown in a non linear narrative, the film introduces the mercenary Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) as he heads in a taxi to take his revenge out on Francis (Ed Skrein), the villainous British mutant who experimented and disfigured him. The impressive attack seen in the test footage is back and improved upon, and then in flashback partly narrated by Deadpool we are introduced to pre-transformation Wade, who still has the same humour and wit. This section establishes the love story of the film between him and the equally fucked up escort Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). This eventually turns into a simple superhero origin story when Wade discovers he has terminal cancer, which leads to the Frankenstein-esque quest of revenge against the people who created him and destroyed his life in the present. To guide us through the shifting time periods is the fourth wall breaking and enigmatic Deadpool, as he gives insight on how he became the disfigured and insane vigilante we all know and love. This material in another movie could have been handled in an incredibly dark fashion, but tonally the film remains consistent to the source material with lots of humour, pop culture references and a self referential nod to the real world that really sets Deadpool apart from its contemporaries. The story for the film is incredibly simple and formulaic, but in a comedy like this it really doesn't matter too much as it just acts as the framework for the jokes to play off. A more complicated story would never be able to work in this context, and the use of the simple story never makes the action or humour appear dull.

This is Ryan Reynolds second portrayal of the merc with a mouth, after a disastrous attempt in the 2009 flop X-Men Origins: Wolverine. When compared against the poor story, excessive use of random characters and the mesmerizingly poor CGI that makes the film look like it was made to be straight-to-DVD, Reynolds portrayal of the character at the beginning of the film can probably be taken away as one of the only positives, as he really tried to tap into the irreverent humour of the character and show off his incredibly impressive comedic skills on a minor level. But the ending absolutely shattered this when the character most known for his quips and wit had his mouth sewn shut and his powers exaggerated and bastardised to the stage where many believed that Deadpool on screen really was a lost cause. Luckily due to a lot of people who really wanted to give the character justice (and some test footage potentially being leaked by Reynolds himself) Reynolds luckily was given a second chance at playing the character.

Reynolds stands out in the film and is really excellent, with his portrayal being like the character had jumped straight out of the comics and onto the screen. Like Hugh Jackman, Robert Downey jr. and Chris Evans before him, this is a man that was born to play this character. And whilst his other performances in other pretty poor Superhero films can be seen as lacklustre, due to his genuine love of the material it really makes him a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast are all strong too; Baccarin is great as the love interest and brings a lot of heart to the plot, newcomer Brianna Hildebrand is a lot better than I expected as obscure X-Men member Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Ed Skrein and Stefan Kapicic are both hammy and great as the archetypal British villain Francis and the CGI metal skinned X-Man Colossus respectively. T.J. Miller and Leslie Uggams deserve particular praise for bringing to life the oddball friends and sidekicks Weasel and Blind Al, with them besides Reynolds bringing most of the humour to the film.

Complaints for the film would probably go to the constant pop culture references to social media and various actors, that whilst in character and well done are very reflective of the zeitgeist of the modern era and may make the film appear dated in a few years time. Another big complaint goes to the CGI and set pieces not looking particularly interesting or spectacular; Colossus looks odd and out of place in nearly every scene he is in and the final showdown arena isn't particularly interesting visually. A lot of the film takes place on an overpass or in fairly dull areas, which is unusual for a film in this genre which typically have big, extravagant backdrops. Due to many Superhero films having an incredibly higher budget than this, moments in the film do appear cheap and out of place, with one scene where Deadpool visits the X-Men mansion looking more like something out of an SNL sketch than a cinematic superhero film. Luckily these problems are addressed and mocked, with the studio and the films budget featuring in several gags throughout, like how only two obscure X-Men seem to be around in the film due to budget restraints. Generally everything about the other X-Men films, Reynolds's past outings in poorly received superhero films and Hugh Jackman are mocked and ridiculed throughout, and this is handled fantastically where it is handled subtly and all the other characters act as unknowing straight men to Deadpools insanity. Any moment that feels a little cheap or bad is heightened by the incredibly strong script and the fantastic performances. Parents be warned; this isn't your typical superhero film!

At the time of writing this review Deadpool has just had a better opening weekend than the previous X-Men films in grossing at the Box Office, which may or may not be due to its R rating which gave the writers more freedom with the material. It's pretty certain that from this there will be many imitations made to emulate Deadpool's success, with the third Wolverine film already being announced as being R-rated. Often films of this callibre that do something a little different with their material bring a new trend to the genre, with two big ones being The Dark Knight and Guardians of the Galaxy. The Dark Knight was very successful critically and commercially, and afterwards a lot of films were made dark and gritty to bank in on the success of this style. Alternatively Guardians of the Galaxy was incredibly popular for its wackiness, inventiveness and use of old music in the science fiction setting, and afterwards many films have also tried to imitate this very different style. This shift in imitating popular film trends can probably be best seen in the teaser trailers for Star Trek Into Darkness (can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdgRx94W5ko) and Star Trek Beyond (can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw). Whilst both are sequels in the Star Trek franchise, both imitate the style of The Dark Knight and Guardians of the Galaxy respectively, in a way that's almost laughable. Undoubtedly many R rated superhero films will be released in the next couple of years, and I'm sure many executives and producers will already be after the next obscure property that they can produce in this style. But this is sort of missing the point. What makes films like The Dark Knight, Guardians of the Galaxy and now Deadpool so popular and interesting is that they dare to be inventive with their source material, they care about their fans wants and they try to do something new in a genre that can be so repetitive.

Summary: A few naff set pieces aside, Deadpool delivers exactly what was promised; a fun, violent, offensive and original film with strong performances and a fantastic script, that breathes a lot of life into the Superhero genre

8/10

The Revenant Review

"As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight. You breathe... Keep fighting"

When director Alejandro G. Inarritu blew away critics and film audiences alike with last years best picture winner Birdman, audiences highly anticipated what would be the next project of the inventive and interesting film-maker. One of the major things that set Birdman apart from other films nominated that year and what it is perhaps best remembered for one year on is its powerful use of interesting camera techniques, particularly the extensive use of the long tracking shot, which through clever editing gave the film the appearance that only one long shot is used throughout. But what makes the film truly fantastic and rewatchable in my opinion is its strong dialogue, script, characters and story, and is made greater from these elements rather than it being nothing but a hollow presentation of a unique film making technique. The visuals, editing and film making all cooperate to compliment the strong material at hand. Whilst Inarritu's follow up, the western epic The Revenant, is a fantastic piece of film making and a great film overall, it does seem to suffer from slight style over substance, and what really shines more than the story at hand is the directors impressive presentation of the setting, the visuals and the technical intricacies of film making. I will be going over the film in depth in the next few paragraphs, so bear in mind (pun intended) that there will be many spoilers from this moment on.

Like The Hateful Eight earlier this year, this film is also set in the colder reaches of 1800's America. Set in 1823 Montana, the film is loosely inspired on a folk tale surrounding the real life of frontiersman, explorer and fur trapper Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), and is predominantly about his survival of a brutal bear attack, his betrayal and abandonment by his colleagues and his attempt to stay alive in the harsh Louisiana Purchase wilderness. Whilst this story was used for inspiration, many of the elements including the elements of revenge and family are fictional. The film opens, like Birdman, with a culmination of vivid, surreal and beautiful imagery, showing a little of the history of the Glass character, his romance with a native American and a sort of mantra that the character lives by; that whilst you're breathing you need to fight to stay alive. This is an overarching theme throughout the entire movie and whilst a little heavy handed in its delivery, these Inarritu dream sequences are always wonderfully shot and in this case it really brings a lot of atmosphere to the first minute of the film, and sets the tone very well.

It then shifts to later on in time to a brutal surprise attack on the Rocky Mountain Fur Company trappers by the Arikara Native Americans, and has an incredibly impressive long tracking shot of the surviving Frontiersman escaping to their boat in a wonderful piece of choreographed madness and technical mastery that in my opinion is the second best scene in the entire film. This moment is very hard to not get drawn into, and you get a real sense of the brutality of this period in American history. The mise en scene in particular is made incredibly realistic in contrast to other westerns that are produced, with the blood and mud and dirt appearing terribly real with the desaturated look of the film. The sense of misery is incredibly realistically conveyed, more so than any other film I've probably seen since Saving Private Ryan.

The stand out scene of the film comes shortly after this, when Glass is attacked by a bear. This acts as the pivotal inciting moment in the films plot. The scene is visceral, violent and shocking, with the bear given a surprisingly realistic motive in the attack rather than just being the monster necessary to advance the plot, and in fact is actually provided with a lot more sympathy than I expected to see. I think in a way this adds to the drama, and can favourably be compared to Ang Lee's masterpiece Life of Pi, which also portrayed wild animal predators in a similar fashion. This scene is played out simply as two animals fighting on screen, both mirroring each other in their sacrifices to protect their off-spring. More so than the monster that is Tom Hardy's amoral Fitzgerald, the bear is an antagonistic force that is simplistic and acts as a symbolic force of nature against the frontiersmen and their destruction of the natural American wilderness. The attack is gruesome and realistic, and sure to make you wince whilst viewing, and has rightly been given the critical attention that it deserves. Whilst being almost wholly computer generated, the bear looks incredibly convincing and meshes brilliantly with the hyper realistic landscape that Innaritu constructs.

After the attack Glass is mortally wounded, and as the other frontiersmen can't continue on their way carrying his body on a stretcher, Fitzgerald (Hardy) the young Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) and Glass's half-native son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) stay behind to look after Glass with promise of a large reward, and are told to look after him or give him a proper burial in the likely circumstance that he dies. In a particularly brutal speech Fitzgerald decides that it is best for all of them if they murder Glass, and in trying to ends up murdering Hawk. He then convinces the unknowing Bridger to abandon Glass half dead on the assumption that he will die from his wounds and so they can escape from an imaginary attack from the natives. Left for dead, the rest of the film essentially follows Glass's incredible struggle to stay alive, heal his wounds and travel back to the settlement to get his revenge on Fitzgerald, whilst also having a spiritual journey in finding himself.

The acting in the film is consistent and well played, and one of the best elements of the entire film. Leonardo DiCaprio shines in the leading role, and whilst it can be argued that his performance isn't outstanding or vastly different from some of his other performances, he really gets into the role and his acting is strong. Not many other leading actors can portray pain and sheer misery like DiCaprio, and watching him MacGuyvering his way through the wilderness is heightened by his ability to physically portray the hardships and brutal injuries of the character, in a way that I don't think many actors would be able to pull off. Even stronger in the film however is Tom Hardy, who completely embodies the monstrous and vile character of Fitzgerald that only an actor of his calibre can do. Essentially in films like this there are two different kinds of actors; those who act the part that they are given and those who become the part and make it more than it was ever written to be. Whilst Leonardo DiCaprio plays his role incredibly well, he never truly embodies the spirit of the character in the way that Hardy can. From Bane to Ivan Locke to Max Rocketansky to the Kray twins, Hardy has the incredibly rare ability to morph into whatever part he is given, and he really has a field day in this dark and grim role. Will Poulter is also excellent, and really hasn't received enough attention or acclaim for his performance, in which he plays against the older, more experienced actors marvellously.

Technically this film is a marvel, and like Birdman before it Innaritu expertly utilises the interesting filming methods at his disposal to really draw you into the film on a visual and technical level. Shot with all natural lighting, the film looks beautiful, with the location really being emphasised at all moments and the costumes incredibly well designed. Unfortunately for the films sake the visuals and technical elements are really only a filler to the story and script, which despite the key dramatic moments early on thin out during the long second act. Pretty much all of this act is just DiCaprio having a problem with a certain injury and dealing with it, whilst dragging his maimed body towards his end goal. Whilst this is interesting and certainly shot well with a fantastic score, at moments it feels stretched out. It almost seems like there wasn't enough material for the film to be made so scenes feel drawn out, in a way that it almost becomes boring. Whilst the dream like sequences and the fantastic exchanges between Poulter, Hardy and Domnhall Gleeson break up this middle section, the action all seems episodic and you feel yourself waiting impatiently for the final act and the final pay off.

Luckily the pay off is well handled and it really brings back the sheer brutality of the early scenes as Glass tracks down the disgraced and escaped Fitzgerald. This leads to a vicious fight between the two men at the side of a river bank, which can be compared to the bear fight earlier in the film and is really well choreographed and acted, and acts as a great pay off to the long, drawn out and thoughtful odyssey for the Hugh Glass character. Tonally even in these more violent and shocking scenes and the slower more introspective scenes, the film is consistent and stylish in its delivery.

Summary: Whilst certainly not without its faults, particularly in its pacing and the script, the acting is fantastic and the film is well worth a watch for its stunning visuals alone, and is yet another example of Innaritu's mastery of innovative film making techniques

7/10