Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

"Devils don't come from hell beneath us. 

They come from the sky."

Batman v Superman: Yawn of Justice.

Bloody hell... Okay, here's the official synopsis on IMDb:

Fearing the actions of Superman are left unchecked, Batman takes on the man of steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs. With Batman and Superman fighting each other, a new threat, Doomsday, is created by Lex Luthor. It's up to Superman and Batman to set aside their differences along with Wonder Woman to stop Lex Luthor and Doomsday from destroying Metropolis.

This synopsis represents exactly what is wrong with the film itself. It's confused, it's too long, it's not structured, it's self important and it's too cluttered.

The hugely anticipated DC Superhero face off is upon us and, racking in at a gargantuan 151 minutes long, it encapsulates everything that's wrong with the superhero movement that seems to have the world drooling at the mouth for more. 

Where do you start with a film like 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'?

The beginning is normally the best place but with this film it never really feels like it's started. You go from scene to scene expecting all the pieces to come together in a fluid way but they never do. 

We are pulled in so many different directions from the beginning that it starts to feel like there's too much going on and, as the film progresses, this crack in the foundation gets wider and wider. Tonally, the film is all over the place. It doesn't know what it wants to be. There's no thread that takes you through the plot in a slick and concise way as you stumble clumsily from scene to scene. It doesn't feel like one flowing story and, especially when you have so many different things going on, it should be seamlessly put together. It feels like there was a check list of elements that were required and they built a film around these elements.

I could forgive a lot of the plot holes and narrative issues if I could at least have a good time with it but, my god, it's so monotonous. How can a film about two superheroes fighting be as boring as 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' was? If it had been released 15 years ago it maybe could have been fresh, perhaps even exciting but, in this day and age, we have seen so much better so have come to expect so much more. 

It plays by the numbers and goes where you expect it to. There wasn't much new in there and it had no personality and no character. It's got a dark and brooding tone without the quality to back it up and justify it. 

Nolan's 'The Dark Knight' strikes the perfect balance of dark tone, story, character and action. It set the bar so high and no one has really come close to it, not even Nolan himself with his subpar follow up 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

There are so many meaningless and fatty scenes with dialogue that should have been cut away the instant an editor got their hands on it. The entire film runs like the first cut of a film. First cuts will have absolutely everything in them and it's at that point that you sculpt and mould it into a story. This film seems to have skipped that process and just went straight for release. Obviously this isn't the case but it sure feels close to it. 

For me, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor is one of the worst performances in the film. He does exactly what you'd expect Jesse Eisenberg to do. He's the same character in everything he's in and 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is no exception. The awkward, fast talking, "intelligent" teenager act is growing old with Jesse Eisenberg and I think he was the wrong choice for the main villain in this film. I think they tried to modernise the character but, in doing so, end up turning him into a pantomime villain. He's over the top (not in a good way) and it becomes embarrassing to watch at times. 

Ben Affleck's Batman was probably the best part of this film. He was damaged and broken which makes him unstable and dangerous. Ideally, he should have had a film of his own. There was too much going on too quickly for us to even get to grips with this new and very different Batman. His introduction was the most development we see in the film and it gave us another layer to Ben Affleck's Batman. However from then, after this hopeful introduction, we are only given pieces of the other well known characters with little to no development to make us care enough to invest ourselves in them. They very much rest on the expectation that the audience already loves the characters which, unfortunately, is both lazy and disappointing. 
Giving us a guy in a bat suit and calling him Batman doesn't necessarily make him Batman.

The trailer definitely showed too much. A common problem these days. 

All of the most interesting moments of the film were showed in the trailer. Not spoiling anything here but the character Doomsday was shown in the trailer so it comes as no surprise when the heroes have to face off against it. 

It looks like the cave troll from 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' and it looks as awful as it does in the trailer, a big hunk of CGI mush. The whole scenario was crowbarred in to give them all something to fight together. 

Of course, not before we get an extended crotch shot of Wonder Woman to introduce us to her character. Played by model Gal Gadot, she gives as good a performance as you'd expect "Miss Isreal 2004" to give. With such pressure on all filmmakers to finally give women the representation they deserve in films, we get the ultimate female superhero - Wonder Woman - with all the sexist glory from the 40's and 50's.

The visuals were one of the more redeemable aspects of the film. They had a very dark stylistic edge to them and packed some great images into the fight scenes but, at the end of the day, it's all just style over substance with Zack Synder. He has some impressive visuals but the storytelling just isn't there.

What's even more frustrating is the fact that it did have some potential. The elements of a great action flick were there but they were just lost in the confusion. There were even some interesting themes and concepts knocking about within the mess. If 45 minutes had been cut off the run time and one story selected to follow, it would have been the foundation of a much better film. 

Overall, the film is boring and sloppy. The whole story and structure were a mess and it stumbles it's way over the finish line with a groan.

I think the over saturation of superhero movies is solely down to us. Despite the quality of the film and the dreadful reviews, the much anticipated 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' had a record breaking opening weekend as it took in an estimated $170 million. That's the biggest opening weekend of all time for a pre-summer release. It just goes to show that if a film makes money, it really doesn't matter how good it is. 

They'll make a lot more of them and they'll make them cheaper in order to capitalise on the superhero surge until it's bled dry. We'll eat up anything with a DC or Marvel logo stamped on it until the next wave hits us. I think it'll be the 'Star Wars' franchise next but, in the meantime, I'm sure we'll get another 8 or 9 DC movies in the next few years with spin offs, prequels, sequels, merchandise, McDonalds toys and TV shows to go along with them.

Does the onslaught ever end?

Angel Heart (1987)

"You know what they say about slugs. 

They always leave slime in their tracks."

If this film proves anything, it’s that no matter how little screen time Robert De Niro has, he’ll always steal the show. It also proves that there was a time when Mickey Rourke didn’t look like a melted tire.

Private eye Harry Angel is hired by the mysterious Louis Cyphre to track down a missing person. 

I discovered Alan Parker’s 1987 film ‘Angel Heart’ on a whim after a Blu Ray shopping spree and, before I knew it, I was thrown into a supernatural world full of detective work, murders and satanic cults. "These are a few of my favourite things!”.

The film kicks off with small time private eye Harry Angel, played by Mickey Rourke, going to a meeting with a mysterious business man named Louis Cyphre, played by the great De Niro, who pays him handsomely to look into a missing persons case. As he begins to look into the case, strange things begin to happen around him and to the people he's been meeting with.

It sounds like your bog standard detective movie and, it kind of is, but it’s got so much more going on that it elevates itself from the norm.

We are given very few details as we embark on this mission with Harry Angel and are left to fend for ourselves a lot of the time. Rourke works his way through clues and leads but the tension starts to boil as we begin to realise, with Harry Angel, that there are more malicious forces involved in this than Louis Cyphre is letting on.

Mickey Rourke, despite being heavily overshadowed by De Niro in the marketing, is the lead in this brooding film and he’s very good as Harry Angel. He's very charismatic and sits right into the role. He’s unkept and hungover, doesn’t play by the rulebook and smokes a lot. Despite this archetype, he does it so much better than most. He’s got style, good looks and a great acting range that brings believability to a lot of scenes that would be typically unbelievable. These tough scenes are what separates him from the rest and prove that he has the acting chops to stand toe to toe with the likes of De Niro in this story. 

Robert De Niro, for only being in the film for a couple of scenes, really sets the tone for the rest of the film. With his razor sharp nails, slicked back long hair and sharp suits, he’s got an equal amount of mysterious style and grotesque depravity about his character that just sets the plot alight early on. He instantly involves you in Harry Angel’s story. Marlon Brando was originally considered for the role but I can't imagine anyone else doing it as classy as Robert De Niro does.

The imagery in ‘Angel Heart’ is what will stick with you. Key moments in the film are enhanced by some powerful images that will burn into your subconscious. One scene in particular is a sex scene involving Harry Angel, passionate sex and horrific flashing images are intercut while blood rains from the ceiling onto their naked backs. 
The film has a "look" and it expertly executes it. It's also a period piece so the costumes and the sets add a lot to this as well, you're transported to the place and the time in every scene and Rourke revels in it. 

The film has a lot of excesses and a lot of style and director Alan Parker manages to balance the two with flare. It pushes the envelope and you can tell everyone was having fun with what they were doing. The characters are interesting and every piece of the puzzle that you get paints a rich and developed picture.
The film is a bit of puzzle and it's part of the fun with any murder mystery to try and put it all together but it's got a larger agenda to it than that. It has a lot of moving pieces and, when you put them together, the bigger picture becomes clearer. Not crystal clear though, more like looking through a cloudy window, you can see the view but there’s a lot you’re missing.

Overall, this is a little gem of a film that you should definitely check out. It’s entertaining, intriguing, atmospheric and makes you think. It deals with some pretty horrific ideas and themes but I guarantee you’ll not be able to look away.

It’s got a great story and some unexpected moments that makes me want to rewatch it over and over.

The very 80's trailer below actually hits the nail on the head by tagging it as 'The Exorcist' meets 'Chinatown', I can't compete with an 80's movie trailer voice-over...

The Witch (2016)

"Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?"

Stay away from the woods. As a life rule, just always stay away from the woods...

A family in 1630's New England are torn apart by witchcraft and black magic.

I love the Salem Witch Trials. Having been to Salem, Massachusetts, I have had an obsession for the trials, ancient witchcraft and the psychology behind it all for years. Needless to say, when I heard about this film, I was very excited.

Seeing the trailer for ‘The Witch’ filled me with hope that there are still well made, artistic and genuinely scary horror films out there. There were endless positive reviews and word of mouth was building for this movie but, unfortunately, seeing it wasn’t nearly as fulfilling as I had hoped it was going to be.

The film starts out extremely well. It has bucketloads of tension, mystery and some seriously fucked up imagery and events. Like a rollercoaster, it gradually pulls us up to the height of anticipation and, just when you think you’re going to go over the edge at top speed, it stops and slowly brings you back in reverse and the ride grinds to a halt.

The slow pace of the film didn't bother me, it was the structure of the film that felt sporadic. The story was relatively well balanced and had lots of details that brought it to life but the tension and the horror weren't consistent. Personally, I think it gave too much too soon and didn't have much left to build to. It goes pretty much where you expect it to go, not that it's predictable but it's not a surprise when it all happens.

Don't get me wrong, 'The Witch' has its moments of pure horror but they are so few and far between that the film begins to drag after its fantastic opening. The tension is lost in moments of poor acting and the meaning of certain aspects of the film are lost in the confusion.

This leads me to one of the main problems with the film. The acting. The characters speak in an old English dialect and you can tell that the actors either don’t understand what the lines mean or have simply memorised the lines. It gives you the impression that they are more focused on making sure they get the lines right rather than delivering a meaningful line of dialogue. It feels like a bad theatre production. Unfortunately, this was especially the case with the younger actors, an unavoidable issue with young actors speaking in a dialect that they aren't used to but the older actors should have had a better grip of it. Probably the best actor of the family was Ralph Ineson who delivered the most believable performance.

The cinematography was interesting and really suited the tone of the film. The way it was shot was like an old painting from the 1600's come to life. This was a stroke of genuis from cinematographer Jarin Blaschke but style alone doesn’t necessarily redeem a film and it certainly doesn’t with ‘The Witch’.

A lot of the themes and ideas have been done so well in ‘The Crucible’ that it’s hard to top them anywhere else. Despite taking a different approach and a different flavour to 'The Crucible', it still felt like a cheap knock-off off and didn’t feel authentic. It had a lot of potential but falls short of the mark, which is especially frustrating because it's dealing with a lot of folk tales and mythology that are gripping and horrific. When you have such rich and textured lore to draw on it's a shame to see it wasted.

I could see what they were going for but I just don’t think that it paid off in the end and left me unsatisfied.

Overall, I was really disappointed with 'The Witch'. I expected so much and only got about 40% of what I had hoped for. It has some decent imagery and a handful of moments that make the film worth the watch but, ultimately, it doesn't deliver on all aspects. There are two key scenes in the film that will send a shiver up your spine but the rest falls into obscurity.

The glowing reviews feel a little misplaced after seeing the film but, who knows, it may just be my own personal bias towards the source material. Only one man's opinion!

A little bit of style over substance for me in this one but, in the end, it's something new and it's something relatively original so I'm happy that the horror genre is moving in this direction... Hopefully.

Secret In Their Eyes (2016)

"Justice... I owe my daughter that.”




Oh Julia... They made you look like Glenn Close. 

A team of rising investigators, along with their supervisor, is suddenly torn apart when they discover that one of their own teenage daughters has been murdered.

A remake of the 2009 Spanish film 'El Secreto De Sus Ojos', this film starts out as a heavy handed, non-subtle, predictable Hollywood thriller finishes as a heavy handed, non-subtle, predictable Hollywood thriller.



For having a pretty solid cast of veteran acting talent including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman and Dean Norris, not even the "all-star" cast could make this film work.



The film starts off on a slightly unbalanced foot as we find ourselves jumping between two different timelines, which is no bad thing, but when it's full of exposition and stating the obvious for the audience then it becomes tiresome pretty quickly. "Oh I've not seen you in 10 years, I heard you had 3 promotions, you never married?" Blah Blah Blah...

Subtly is never normally in the vocabulary of most Hollywood remakes, prequels and franchises and 'Secret in their Eyes' is no exception. Shoddy and lumbering dialogue slows every scene and makes for some cringe-worthy moments. Pieces of the puzzle are dropped like lead balloons in the attempt to mystify you when the big finale emerges. In the end it's as surprising as

 Cliff Richard being accused of being a paedophile, it was bound to happen in the end.

Probably the best part of this movie was Chiwetel Ejiofor. He's a great actor with some difficult scenes and he manages to make it work for the most part. There are a few moments in the film that make you pay attention and perks up what is a relatively straight forward mystery. However, the concept and puzzle that the film presents could have been a homage to the great murder mysteries of cinema, with intricate layers of plot and suspect characters, but all that is sacrificed for a benign love story between Ejiofor and the ever-whispering Nicole Kidman.

Julia Roberts is pretty quiet in the film and, despite the age defying quality she actually has, she has a lot of make up on to make her look haggard and old. Her character could have been a lot more interesting than she was but, unfortunately, she's simply functional enough to get the job done. 

Dean Norris plays Hank from 'Breaking Bad', complete with a limp, and we love him for it. "They're minerals Marie!".

The revelation that one of their own has been murdered is a tough scene for any actor to reign in but, despite this, it actually turns out to be one of the better scenes in the film. 

Having not seen the original film it's hard for me to judge this remake against the original but I can take an educated guess that the original is a whole lot better than this. The ideas and concepts of the film were there, they are deep and full of mystery and probably a lot better written in the original. Hollywood dumbs down movies for the masses and thrillers often tend to suffer the most. Especially foreign language adaptations. The nuances in the story are lost to dreadful exposition and characters become two dimensional plot devices. When the source material is obviously good enough to make you want to remake it in English, you better well keep the essence of the film alive, otherwise it loses all of what made it so successful in the first place.



The big twist finale isn't as shocking as it claims itself to be. It's no surprise when it comes because of the clumsy foreshadowing that flags up the fact that a plot twist is probably going to happen. It becomes a matter of counting down until it comes rather than being flabbergasted when it takes you by surprise.

 What is even more frustrating is the fact that it does have some good moments and it does explore some intriguing ideas but it doesn't do it well enough and doesn't go deep enough to make it worthwhile.




It isn't the worst of these types of films that I've seen. It's reasonably entertaining and will keep your attention for most of the film. Will I ever watch it again? No but I don't regret watching it by any means.



Overall, are the secrets in their eyes? I think the secrets are in the bad writing and mediocre delivery. 'Secret in their Eyes' is a bog-standard, run of the mill, by the numbers thriller that Hollywood has churned out to make a few quick bucks. The ideas and themes that they dilute are actually really interesting and challenging but are lost in the finished article.



There are glimmers of hope in the film that give us a taste of how good it could have been but, ultimately, your time is better spent digging out the original. That's what I'm going to do!



Despite this, Julia, I still believe in you.

The Green Inferno (2013/2016)

"Be careful, the jungle is a dangerous place."

Is it wrong that watching cannibals eat cooked human flesh made me quite hungry?

After campaigning to save the rain forest, a group of student activists find themselves captives of a cannibalistic tribe in the amazon.

Ever since I saw the trailer and read the synopsis for this film I was game. I eagerly watched for the release date to secure myself a ticket to see this enjoyably horrific video nasty throwback. I waited a couple of weeks... Then a couple of months... And before I knew it I had been waiting years for it to surface with a UK release date. 

I avoided all reviews and as many clips as I could to keep it as fresh as 'Cannibal Holocaust' must have been to the first audience that saw that back in 1980. It technically had a 2013 release date but in the UK we are only getting the DVD & Blu Ray release now... in 2016.

Rumours of banning and censorship were bounced around endlessly but, as it turns out, the truth was much less exciting with issues regarding distribution. Not quite the legendary status that 'Cannibal Holocaust', it's original predecessor and inspiration for the film, holds to this day.

The film starts out badly as you'd expect any horror of this level to start. Dreadful exposition, annoying characters and bland development. That being said, in these types of horrors, that's not what you're here for. You aren't looking for subtleties or nuances in performance. At the end of the day, you just want to see these students get fucked up by an angry cannibal tribe in the deep amazon jungle. That's it. So bring me their heads. 

Unfortunately when it does come down to the nitty gritty of it, and as much as it pains me to say, it's not actually that great. 

The idea itself is more terrifying than the delivery of the film. 

The sheer horror of having a cannibalistic tribe take you captive with the very real desire to cook and eat you would make anyone squirm. Unfortunately, it ends up being a very "meh" experience. It's not quite scary enough to be a cold blooded horror and it's not quite extreme enough to ranked among the goriest of horror flicks. This dumps the film in a strange grey area of horror where it lives in limbo and simply washes over you without leaving much of an impact. Not where a horror film wants to sit. 

The gore in the film is decent, its over the top and unflinching which is what these types of movies should be but it's pretty tame compared to some films of the same genre. 

If it had solidly stuck to one side of the fence rather than splitting its efforts then it might have been more effective. With a horror film like this, you need a huge set of balls and to just go all out. Like really go for it. If you're going for gore and shock factor then you better go the whole hog and make us spew in our seats. If you don't go down that route then it better be terrifying. That's a perfect world and I do believe that it is possible to have both in one horror but 'The Green Inferno' doesn't pull it off.

It seems to me like director Eli Roth had a little too much creative control over the film. It's always the same problem with directors who are given the reigns to do what they want and it always becomes a little self indulgent.

The balance of the narrative is way off the mark. It takes a long time to get where it needs to get and say what it needs to say. If it's a slow burn horror then that's great but when you're spending valuable cannibal time with some frustratingly irritating characters then the clock starts ticking. The tension just isn't strong enough to justify the drawn out story at the beginning. 

What I did enjoy about the film was the way it approached the tribe itself. There is a certain level of respect for them, albeit in the context of them being cannibalistic murderers, but it's dealing with the idea that we are just as, often more, savage than the tribe that is committing these atrocities. We are destroying the rainforest for profit and murdering tribes who have lived in these parts for hundreds if not thousands of years.

It takes a solemn look at female genital mutilation and, tragically, how it's still carried out today. It brings to light a different culture to our own that, on the surface, seems a million years behind our own society but when you look deeper you realise we are not that different. The brutalities are the same, just on different levels. After some research it's hard to believe that female genital mutilation actually still happens in some parts of the UK. 

'The Green Inferno' touches on some interesting ideas but, ultimately, doesn't deliver 100% on all the aspects that make these types of horrors a thing of myth and legend. It has gore but nothing ground breaking, it has tension but not enough to make you squirm and it's nasty but not as nasty as it could have (and should have) been. 

Worth the wait?
Not really. Your time would probably be better spent watching the original 'Cannibal Holocaust' if you're in need of some good ole fashioned human BBQ.