Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (Review) - Exceptionally Conflicting

Well, here it is: the film that's divided critics and moviegoers since its first trailer released almost a year ago. A sequel to 2013's Man of Steel in all but name, Dawn of Justice pits the two titans against eachother in the ultimate showdown...kind of. 

In actuality, the film explores the idea of whether it's possible to have a figure who possesses absolute power, and have this figure still be allowed to operate above the governing law. It does this by questioning what it means to be a 'hero', and whether the ends outweigh the means. At its very best, Dawn of Justice commentates of the nature of a character like Superman, and how he stacks up against a morally ambiguous myth like the Batman of this film, portrayed excellently by Ben Affleck. 

At its worst, it's a movie which spreads itself far too thin, and considers the building of a 'universe' to be far more important than the developing an interesting internal conflict and fleshing-out of its titular heroes. Don't get me wrong: there are some truly spectacular moments in the film. In fact, there's scenes that - as a Batman fan - had me almost giddy with excitement. There's also mundane, mindless fights which could be swapped-out with any character and still retain their boring delivery. It's truly a roller-coaster of quality. 

As mentioned, Ben Affleck is, quite frankly, the best Batman we've ever seen on-screen. Playing a much more experienced, battered version of the character, he succeeds in portraying the sense of moral ambiguity that would come with fighting crime for more than twenty years. The line between vigilante and villain has never been ridden as narrowly as it is in Dawn of Justice, and this makes the scenes in Gotham amongst the very best that the film has to offer; Jeremy Irons as Alfred puts it best in the trailer: "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men...cruel." 

But then you come to the other name on the poster: Superman (Henry Cavill). Here's the thing: I've never been overly fussed with Superman as a character. I think he's boring, one-dimensional, and generally lacking in the character and complexity that makes Batman so interesting to explore. And in all honesty, that's no different in this movie. The only moments throughout the film in which Superman seems to have even a glimmer of personality are because he's acting as an accessory to Batman; without the Dark Knight, he would be utterly forgettable. Thankfully, the popularity of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader has led to interest in producing a handful of stand-alone Batman films, and this is arguably the best thing to come out of Dawn of Justice. Really, that should tell you everything you need to know, because remember: this is essentially a Superman sequel. A Superman sequel in which Superman is the worst part. 

Well, that's not quite fair. The worst part of this would either be 'Doomsday', or Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor - two characters who everybody has been dubious about since they were first introduced through marketing. Let's start with Lex Luthor. While he's not as awful as you might have originally thought, Eisenberg just doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie. You've got a dark, foreboding tone established by the two titans, and then you've got this excitable, giggling caricature who apparently has the cunning to orchestrate the entire duel. I'm sorry, but no. 

And as for Doomsday - wow. As I've said, I'm not the biggest Superman fan, but surely there's a better way to depict a villain like this, rather than just as a hulking, bland brute? If anything, the completely forgettable presence that Doomsday creates somehow makes Lex seem more menacing. Also, if you've seen that trailer for this film, then you know practically every beat it intends to hit. I won't spoil anything (mainly because there's little more to spoil), but don't expect to be shocked by any sudden twists. 

Some have said that Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is the best part of the movie, and that's simply not true. Yes, her 'human' alter-ego of Diana Prince works well in conjunction with Bruce Wayne, and she adds a layer of complexity to the mostly hyper-masculine storyline, but she feels relatively shoehorned in. It could be assumed that this is because DC is using Dawn of Justice to hurriedly create a cinematic universe, but this doesn't forgive the awkward way in which she plays into the movie. 

 Verdict
In a cinematic landscape of absolutes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has everything against it. There's parts of it which are almost genius in exploring the character of Batman and portraying a side to Bruce Wayne which we haven't seen, but then there are parts that are truly limited by the necessity to build-up the idea of the Justice League within the DC Universe. Fleeting cameos from other DC superheroes feel incredibly tacked-on, and are almost laughable were it not for how badly they damage the flow of the film. However, despite all of this, I still think it's worth checking out. You just need to decide for yourself whether you're a fan of superhero films, because if not, then you're likely to be more bored than enthused. As somebody who knows a fair bit about Batman, I got a real kick out of certain references and nods. If you don't care about those, then you won't care about this - it's as simple as that. 

"The world has been so caught up with what

he can do that no one has asked what he should do."

  

10 Cloverfield Lane (Review) - Claustrophobic & Thrilling

10 Cloverfield Lane is a reasonably unique movie in today's landscape, in that the first trailer for it appeared mere months ago and now it's already available for viewing. Arguably, this is the best way to go about releasing a movie, because it allows copious hype to retain until the film's release; rather than peter off over the course of many months and many, many trailers. Because of this, there's a good chance you haven't heard much about its plot - keep it that way. The less you know about this genuinely uncomfortable thriller, the better. 

The film opens to Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving her boyfriend after the two of them have a fight. She drives far from their home and ignores the numerous calls he sends to try and patch things up. After stopping for gas, Michelle is suddenly struck by another driver and thrown off the road. When she awakens, she finds herself imprisoned in an underground bunker, and her supposed captor, Howard (John Goodman), informs her that the world has come to an end; however, we soon come to realise that maybe Howard isn't telling the entire truth. As the film plays out, you're left guessing whether Michelle is overly judgemental of Howard, or whether his intentions are notably more sinister. 

This aspect of 10 Cloverfield Lane is one which makes the film a genuine thrill to sit through. Up until the very closing scenes you're left guessing whether Michelle will make it out alive (or whether she'd even want to), which leads to some truly heart-pounding moments. John Goodman is a physically imposing presence in the cramped bunker, and it's clear that he could murder Michelle if he so desired. This being a reality, coupled with the fact that Howard constantly carries a revolver around, and you've got yourself some pretty tense moments to deal with. Additionally, Michelle isn't the only 'survivor' who gets to deal with Howard's scarily drastic emotional shifts; the couple are joined underground by the wise-cracking Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who does nothing but raise tensions when they need anything but. 

And the best part? It's a film that doesn't reveal all its cards at once. Throughout the movie and the numerous fights, you're left guessing whether Howard is crazy or just protective. You don't know Emmett's true motives. Really, you don't even know much about the protagonist, Michelle. All you know is that three people are underground, and one of them thinks that this is the best place for them to be. This means that, once twists and turns do start occurring, you're left wondering as to what they could mean - it's really intriguing stuff. In fact, certain plot lines are never truly concluded - which is great! If only the conclusion of the film could learn from this open-endedness exhibited earlier on. 

Now, I won't spoil the ending outright, but I've got some strong opinions about why it comes close to ruining the rest of the film. Thankfully, the excellent acting on behalf of John Goodman saves what could be a complete catastrophe, but it's apparent that an original, suspenseful thriller was marred by the necessity to include the 'Cloverfield' brand. Just know this: the film should have ended at least 10 minutes early. Any sense of mystery or intrigue is completely squandered by the closing scenes, and I won't say which way the film sways, but just know that there is definitely a definite ending; an ending which ought to have been cut majorly. Without these glaring answers, 10 Cloverfield Lane would have been a close-to perfect film. With them, however, you've got an excellent thriller that leaves you with a slightly sour taste - a thriller that can still be enjoyed regardless, though. 

Verdict
Despite the hugely controversial ending, 10 Cloverfield Lane is still a hugely engrossing movie with some excellent performances and pacing. Yes, it's clear to see where the original idea ends and the marketing necessities begin, but it's still a film well worth your time and money. Some people may say, "leave 10 minutes early," but I'd implore you to witness the ending so that you can form your own opinions on it's relevance. Still, ignoring this, it remains one of the most thrilling thrillers that I've seen in a very, very long time. 

"Don't open that door! You're going to get all 

of us killed!"