Of all superhero comic books, my favourites are the ones published by DC Comics. The company has published my favourite comic book story arcs, and is the home of all of my favourite characters, many of whom have been adapted for the big screen over the years. However, what's undeniable is that Marvel are killing DC on the movie scene, and I have enjoyed all of their movies, characters, and storylines since the release of "Iron Man" way back in 2008. DC have been attempting to catch up with Marvel's massive lead on them in creating a superhero cinematic universe for a few years now. However, both of the movies which are part of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe) have had a pretty divisive reception to say the least, especially "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" earlier this year. It was clear that, if Warner Bros were going to make this universe succeed, they would need to change up their strategies and have a big hit on their hands. Hence we now have "Suicide Squad," marketed as DC's answer to "Guardians of the Galaxy," with the trailers including pop music rather than a deep, booming Hans Zimmer score, as well as more humour instead of a gloomy Superman and Batman growling "do you bleed." So, is "Suicide Squad" worthy of being the big hit that the studio sorely need, or should you avoid it and convince the company that they need to scrap this world, and start fresh? Let's take a look.
The story of the movie revolves around U.S. Intelligence Officer Amanda Waller gaining the authority to put together a team of criminals and super-villains which will be controlled and overseen by her to battle any metahuman or otherworldly threat the world might face. The team includes the assassin Deadshot, the madwoman Harley Quinn, the human crocodile Killer Croc and more. The first act (which lasts about 30 minutes) revolves largely around introducing these characters in an interesting and stylistic way. It almost makes the unbelievable amount of exposition across these scenes acceptable, since it is presented in a unique and humorous way. In fact, this is the main difference between "Suicide Squad" and the other DC movies that we've seen before: it is full of funny and amusing moments. Since many of these characters are firmly on the wrong side of the law and don't care much for helping people. The interactions between the characters are all very believable but equally interesting to watch throughout the movie. However, what the movie fails to do is build a realistic team dynamic between them. Fair enough, when they are first brought together, they do split into pairs and start making plans on how to escape. However, the team have never worked together before this mission, and so it is unbelievable that they would suddenly be able to take down the threat they are up against simply because they actually put their minds to it. There is very little, if any, build-up through the movie to these team moments in the finale.
As the trailers have done a good job of showcasing, only one character that we've already met in DC movies returns here, and that is Ben Affleck's Batman for a quick few minutes (don't worry, that's in the trailer too, it's not a spoiler). Thankfully, Affleck is continuing to do a great job and I can't wait to see him more in the role. However, the main focus of the movie is on the members of the Squad themselves, but only a few are appropriately developed. Will Smith's Deadshot is one of these. Deadshot is one of the only characters in the movie that is given any emotional depth and a reason to support him. The character's likability is only helped by Smith's humour throughout the movie. However, the real star of the movie is Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. Appropriately insane and true to her comic counterpart, Robbie steals the show from her co-stars and delivers a killer performance, particularly in the emotional moments. The only other two characters who received any meaningful development were Jay Hernandez's El Diablo (who I can't really go into detail about for the sake of spoilers) and Viola Davis' Amanda Waller, who is far scarier and more intimidating than the Squad. Davis delivers an excellent performance throughout the movie, and she is one of the other characters I can't wait to see more of. The rest of the Squad, on the other hand, is left out to dry. Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flag is a dull, generic soldier with no real personality despite the attempt to give him a tie to the villain, Jai Courtney is good as the comic relief Captain Boomerang but is given no real development besides one strange character trait and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is given nothing to do as Killer Croc. However, the worst of the lot is the villain. They haven't really been shown off much in the trailers so I won't spoil it for anyone who doesn't want to know, but they are given absolutely no personality, are not intimidating, and the actor doesn't do a good job at performing this role.
Wait, there's a character I'm missing, you say? Who could that be? Oh right, one of the focuses of the marketing: the Joker, played this time around by Jared Leto. Now, a lot has been made of Leto's actions on set in the build-up to release, with Will Smith going so far as to say he "only met the Joker" on set, while Leto made a show of sending different items to people on set. Additionally, in typical DC fashion at this point, there was plenty of controversy surrounding the character's look, with the Joker now resembling a punk rocker instead of the psychotic anarchist fans have grown used to. However, having now seen the final product, I have got absolutely no problem with Leto's performance in the movie. It's clear that he has totally devoted himself to the role, and he does a good job of making the role his own. He does not match the level of Heath Ledger's legendary portrayal of the character from "The Dark Knight," but he brings together different personality traits of Jack Nicholson, Ledger, and Mark Hamill's different versions of the character. However, what I do have an issue with is how Joker is utilised within the movie itself. The character is completely inconsequential, and the events of the movie would not have turned out any differently if the character had been cut. Also, the trailers have completely misrepresented the movie here. It is not the Joker vs the Suicide Squad. Joker's entire purpose in the movie is to track down Harley and break her out of prison. What is clear here, though, is that Leto and Robbie have fantastic chemistry in these roles, and it makes me very excited to see them together again in another movie, possibly Ben Affleck's Batman movie.
However, while people may argue about the handling of the story and characters in the movie, what nobody can question is that the action sequences here are on point. As the movie constantly goes out of the way to tell the audience, these are the bad guys, the villains, the criminals of this universe. This immediately gives the action in the movie a unique feel to any other superhero or comic book movie we've seen before. With the characters clearly not caring what happens to each other and not being held back by morality (these guys are willing to and kill more than Batman in Dawn of Justice), the filmmakers have much more flexibility is how they deal with the mindless drones being sent the way of our "heroes." Although, despite the 15-rating given to this movie by the BBFC (who are responsible for all UK film certifications), they still find a way of showing that the group are not actually killing humans. The mix of powers and abilities on screen at the same time in the movie is very interesting to watch. Mixed with the great special and visual effects of the movie (a nice blend of practical and CGI), you're guaranteed to have a great time watching the action being showcased throughout the movie. However, while I am praising the special effects for the majority of the movie, particularly on characters such as El Diablo, there is one particular character which is built entirely out of CGI and looks incredibly strange. The character just doesn't feel like he belongs in the same movie from the rest of the characters, and looks incredibly fake.
The make-up of the movie is extremely well done, and may even be Oscar worthy. Seriously, just take a look at Killer Croc and tell me that the work that has been done to transform the actor into a hideous, realistic-lookign crocodile isn't an incredible feat. The same can be said for the villain's henchmen who, although they may be brain dead in combat, at least they're interesting to look at. The same can be said for the set design in the movie, particularly Belle Reve prison, where many of the Squad members are picked up from at the beginning of the movie. It is entirely believable that this would be the prison used to contain the super villains of this universe. I also enjoyed the cinematography of the movie, which is very clear at all times, and surprisingly lacking in excessive shaky cam or slow motion during the action scenes. It's always good when everything that is happening, despite the often insane amount happening on screen at one time due to this being a large-scale team movie. All of the cinematography and presentation of the movie is presented in a very enjoyable way that is unlike any other movie I've seen in a long time.
If I have one other major criticism of the movie, it's the music choices director David Ayer has has implemented throughout the movie. Constantly throughout the movie, different pop songs will start playing, whether it's a recruitment sequence, a backstory flashback for one of the characters, or (somewhat more predictably) during one of the action scenes. However, very few of these songs are good choices and work in the context of the movie. Imagine my shock when a Kanye West song started playing out of nowhere during the scene shown in the trailer where Deadshot is being tested by Waller. An even worse example of this is when the song "Spirit in the Sky" came on early on in the proceedings. Why is this worse? Because it has been straight-up copied from the soundtrack from "Guardians of the Galaxy," which was the clear inspiration for this type of soundtrack. This is one of the many, many examples in this movie of DC finally showing their desire to follow in Marvel's footsteps. Overall, these songs felt more shoehorned into the movie than anything else.
So, is Suicide Squad better than "Dawn of Justice?" It certainly is, largely thanks to director David Ayer's better handling of the many different characters in the movie. Yes, it's true that a few, such as Deadshot and Harley, are given much more development and backstory than others. However, these undeveloped characters are where the movie is at it's worst, with some receiving so little backstory and character development, that it becomes hard to understand why they have been included in the movie in the first place. The villain is hands down the worst example of this, and is terribly executed, both by the writer and the actor. However, that's not to take away from everything else that is good in the movie, such as the much better writing in the movie, which adds more humour to this universe, as well as the action throughout the movie. Overall, Suicide Squad is a step in the right direction for this cinematic universe, but it still has a long way to go until it can compete with Marvel on their level.
Pros
In-depth and emotional backstory for A FEW Squad members
Some excellent performances
The use of humour throughout
Fun action sequences
Make-up and costume design throughout the movie
Cons
Some severely underdeveloped characters
Terrible villain
Bad music choices
Rating: 6/10
Release Date: 5th of August, 2016
Starring Will Smith, Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, Joel Kinnaman, Viola Davis, Jai Courtney, Jay Hernandez, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Cara Delevingne, Karen Fukuhara, Adam Beach, and Ben Affleck
I, like millions of other people, love a good action movie. These movies showcase incredible, often insane stunt work, intense action and on the whole events which we would never see in real life. However, just because I like them, doesn't mean I can ignore the fact that some of them have ridiculous, non-sensical plots which drive the action even taking place. That's why I appreciate it so much when a movie with an intelligent plot comes along. One franchise which has (mainly) done this, is the Bourne franchise. I say "mainly" because 2012's "The Bourne Legacy" was a bad movie, but the rest of the franchise before that, led by Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, are all great movies, with the third movie in that series ("The Bourne Ultimatum") being particularly well made. The reason I hold these movies in such high regard is because they are a perfect blend of intense action, excellent acting, and smart, engaging stories. It was a shame when that trilogy ended in 2007 and both star Damon and director Paul Greengrass seemed adamant that they would not be returning to make another instalment for a long time. That is why it was a great reveal at the Super Bowl this year when a new Bourne movie was shown off, reuniting Damon and Greengrass once again. After the disappointment that was Jeremy Renner's "Legacy," the trailers made this movie look to be more of what we loved from the Damon movies from 9 years ago. So, did "Jason Bourne" live up the hype that had been built up around it? The short answer is yes. The long answer? Well, let's take a look.
Like I just said, the Bourne movies are known for their intelligent plotting. The movie of the series have never just been generic action movies, but have also included some interesting detective and spy elements, with Jason attempting to both figure out the secrets of his past and bring down some corrupt government operations. Thankfully, this newest instalment continues this trend. Now, the trailers, like the one above, have been pretty vague on story details, so I'm not going to spoil them here. What I will say is that events occur at the start of the movie which cause Bourne to come back into the CIA's crosshairs as he goes on a personal journey to uncover more details about his past. This main plot is an engaging one, to be sure. Early on in the movie, emotional depth is added to the story to make the audience care about Bourne getting to the truth of what happened in his past. This is also cleverly linked into the characters we meet throughout the film, giving them all compelling character arcs and backstories as well. However, the other side of this coin is the irritating and downright absurd subplot revolving around social media and privacy online. It's natural that the writers would have felt the need to implement technology into the story somehow since it has evolved so much since 2007 when the last Matt Damon Bourne movie was released. Some uses of this, though, are outright silly and unbelievable, which only breaks the audiences immersion in the movie, while also slowing the pacing of the story down drastically. This story should have been removed, or at the very least cut down.
Look, people hate on "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, and that's not what this review is meant to do, but this movie only emphasises how much this series requires Matt Damon at the head. Jeremy Renner just does not have the same charisma as Damon on screen, and it goes without saying that Damon is just much better at making the character seem appropriately haunted both by the fact that he can't remember anything in his life from before the events of "The Bourne Identity" and the actions he can remember and has carried out over the 3 films that have come before. The actor is on form in this movie and, although he does not have a lot of lines and only around 290 words to say in the whole movie, he is easily watchable and interesting every moment he is on screen. However, he is not the only great performance in the movie. Both Julia Stiles and Vincent Cassel make the most of their limited screen time and lines and both have interesting character arcs, particularly Cassel's assassin character who has an unexpected relationship with another character in the movie. Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand, has much more to do in the movie. Jones delivers a brilliantly sinister performance that makes the audience hate his actions, but at the same time understand his motivations at all times. Make no mistake though, you'll never root for him over Bourne. However, possibly the best performance in the movie is the one I was most excited to see, and that is Alicia Vikander's performance as Heather Lee, a tech analyst at the CIA who is the franchise's new link between Bourne and the CIA. The reason Vikander is so interesting to watch throughout the movie is because her true allegiances are cleverly kept ambiguous, while she also goes through an engaging character arc which sees her go from a naive agent to a battle-hardened member of the agency.
That's enough about the story and acting though. Important though they are, the aspect of the movie that most people will probably be going for is the ferocious action that the Bourne franchise is known for. Director Paul Greengrass has thankfully delivered on this. Every single action scene is packed full of tension, with you fearing for the safety and lives of all the main characters, even in early action beats like the motorcycle chase sequence through the Athens riot. The close combat and hand-to-hand fight sequences featured throughout the movie are also very intense and continue the brutality that the Bourne franchise has become renowned for. The stunt work in the movie is also fantastic and deserves to be commended. It's great to see Matt Damon once again performing all of his stunts where possible, which helps all of the action to seem far more realistic than if an obvious stunt double can be seen at different points throughout the movie.
In addition to the action, the technical aspects of the film's production are also on point, especially the cinematography. If you are firmly against the use of shaky cam in a movie, then just get out now and don't bother with this one, since you're going to be mortified. The camera is constantly on the move throughout the movie, especially during the fight scenes. I'm not complaining since the use of shaky cam in a movie can actually improve the audience's immersion in the events to an extent, with it adding to the intensity of the action, as well as tense sequences where characters are attempting to go unnoticed or escape from their pursuers. I've mentioned before my respect for movies when they largely use practical effects over the tempting prospect of CGI in modern filmmaking. As with all the entries in this series so far, "Jason Bourne" uses practical effects for the majority of the movie, with only a few natural uses of computer generated effects here and there, and even they are difficult to pick out due to how realistic they look. Once again, the heavy use of practical effects add to the realism of the movie, something that is often hard to achieve as action set pieces are forced to become much more elaborate and large-scale.
There are a few other aspects of the movie, which I would like to give a mention to as well. Costume design, while only a small part of the movie itself, is excellent and suits the different situations of the characters. Set design is also brilliantly executed, with the inside locations all seeming very realistic, but it is the different locations around the world that Bourne is visiting that is the real draw. Just like many other spy franchises, the movie features a great deal of cities and towns from many different continents are all extremely interesting to watch and gives each act and set piece in the movie a unique flavour and feel to it. However, the main part o the movie which I wanted to mention was the soundtrack. The music of the movie by John Powell and David Buckley is fantastic and may be my favourite soundtrack of the year so far. Needless to say, that the iconic theme of the series, Moby's "Extreme Ways," also makes a return at the finale of the movie and makes for one of the best movie moments of the year so far.
So, is "Jason Bourne" the best movie in the franchise? No, it's not. Is it the worst though? Definitely not. In my opinion, it's not even the worst of the Matt Damon Bourne movies. It's true there's a slight issue here in the technology and social media subplot. It's dull, ridiculous and drags on for far too long through the movie's runtime. However, there's plenty to love here. The acting from all the actors in the movie is superb, and the story is equally compelling when it is focused on further exploring the character of Jason Bourne. The action set pieces scattered throughout the movie are once again the highlight here, with them being just as brutal and ferocious as the previous movies, if not more so. The cinematography and visuals of the movie as a whole as on point, as well. It's refreshing to see this kind of movie in a summer blockbuster when we're getting absurd and stupid movies like Ghostbusters at the same time. It's good to have Jason Bourn back and I hope that this is the beginning of a whole new chapter of the series. This franchise has been Bourne again. Sorry.
Pros
Brutal and intense action sequences
Great acting across the board
An engaging story
Cinematography
Fantastic soundtrack
Cons
A few ridiculous plot points and one boring subplot
Rating: 8/10
Release Date: 27th of July, 2016
Starring Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel, Julia Stiles, Riz Ahmed, Ato Essandoh, and Scott Shepherd
So, I was away during Comic-Con this year, so I didn't get to cover a lot of stuff I would like to have talked about. So let's get some of that out of the way quickly: Doctor Strange looks awesome, as does Wonder Woman, Justice League is a little concerning but it's too early to pass judgement, and The Flash and Arrow TV shows look like they are taking one step forward but several steps backwards. What's left, though? That's right: the Marvel Netflix shows. The killed it at Comic-Con this year, giving us not only our first glimpses of Iron Fist and the highly-anticipated Defenders mini-series, but also at the next Marvel show that will be gracing our screens: Luke Cage. Bringing back the character from Jessica Jones, the little teaser they showed was mainly one corridor fight sequence (Marvel seems to really love these, huh?) and it looked pretty encouraging. Now we have a full trailer for the show, that gives a clearer look at other aspects of the show, including the villain and a few of the supporting characters, as well as the setting. Check it out below.
Right away, the big thing that we can take away from the trailer is that this is clearly going to be a very different series from both Daredevil and Jessica Jones. For one, the show has abandoned the Hell's Kitchen area where both of the other Marvel Netflix properties has been set in favour of Harlem, where Luke Cage is traditionally situated in the comics. That means entirely new communities, gangs, people, and tone to the other shows. One of the more subtle differences is highlighted by the end of the trailer. The neighbourhood is aware of what Cage is doing, he's turning his face to TV cameras even though he might not want credit for his actions, and he is clearly showing that he is the one attacking the criminal operations in Harlem. This is very different to the masked Daredevil or PI Jessica Jones. What could this mean for the series? The most obvious thing is a different relationship between the hero and the villain, with Mahershala Ali's Cornell "Cottonmouth" Stokes (who I'll get to in a bit) shown to be threatening Cage in person. If this means that Luke and Cottonmouth will be facing off more in person, then I'm very encouraged by what I'm seeing here.
Mike Colter returns from "Jessica Jones" as Luke Cage
The trailer introduces a few new characters to the series, although some are given more time to shine than others. Of course, Mike Colter takes the spotlight as Cage himself, clearly shown to be the reluctant hero for the city. This should please comic book fans, since Cage typically asks to be paid before helping someone out, making up one half of the "Heroes for Hire," alongside Iron Fist. They're basically enforcers who take cash. Anyway, the villain is one of the other characters who is given more screen time. As I said, this is Cottonmouth, the leading crime boss of Harlem, who seems intent on ruling through fear, which Cage threatens. However, I think there's some little details which haven't been revealed about him just yet. Look at the way he is beating a guy to death so hard close to the beginning that blood is spraying up onto his face and shirt. The show synopsis also says that "Cage must confront his past" in the show. Is it possible that, since the show is going to explore the root and cause of Luke's abilities (as shown in the trailer), that Cottonmouth could have been part of the same experiment and is now using whatever his powers may be to rule the city, making him a match for our hero in a fight? I think so, but that's just me speculating. We only really get glimpses of other characters, such as Rosario Dawson returning as Claire Temple once again, seemingly only to cement that this takes place after Jessica Jones and because she probably has to be at this point. We also get a few quick shots of Simone Missick as Misty Knight and Alfre Woodard as Mariah Dillard, but there really isn't enough to talk about here, so let's move on.
Mahershala Ali as he appears in "House of Cards," another Netflix show
Prior to this trailer, what the marketing team had really focused on showing off was the action in the show, and for good reason. Continuing to play a big part in this trailer, the action looks very different from Daredevil and Jessica Jones, yet again. Thanks to his unbreakable skin, Cage is basically a tank and so has absolutely no need to do any fancy acrobatics or jumping over tables. He seems fine with just taking the hail of bullets coming his way, and then throwing the fools shooting at him through the air. One more factor I want to mention about this trailer is the use of humour. Yes, it's a small point and is overshadowed by the action and the intensity of the actors at quite a few points, but the little bits of humour scattered here and there only reassure me that this is going to be a dark series. Thankfully, just like the comics, we'll get appropriate and tasteful bits of humour where appropriate. It's not like someone's going to be cracking a one-liner while Cottonmouth is beating his henchman or others to death, though.
Alfre Woodard plays Mariah Dillard, a politician and cousin of Cottonmouth
Overall, does this trailer get me more excited for Luke Cage? Absolutely. I'm intrigued by the next direction this series is taking over every other Marvel property to date, but it is still backed up by some great acting, interesting characters and some simply incredible to watch action set pieces. The trailer has done it's job really well of getting myself, other fans of the comics, as well as just casual Netflix viewers, excited for September 30th to watch the whole series over one weekend.
All episodes of Luke Cage premiere on Netflix on September 30th, 2016.
Starring Mike Colter, Simone Missick, Mahershala Ali, Alfre Woodard, Theo Rossi, Frank Whaley, and Rosario Dawson.
There are plenty of comic books worthy of being adapted into films, either live action or animated. Every single fan of comics accepts this as an undeniable fact. Just look at how Marvel and DC alike have used the basis of some of their great storylines to form the plots of some of the movies in their live-action universes: Marvel used the Civil War arc for their latest Captain America venture, while DC loosely used elements of the well-known Knightfall storyline in creating "The Dark Knight Rises." However, many comic book fans often look to animated movies when looking for plots that resemble the comics much more closely, with some even being exact replicas of the graphic novel they are adapting. DC, in particular, have been ruling this section of the market, with many of their movies all being extremely well-reviewed. These include "Justice League: War," "Wonder Woman," "Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths" and the (absolutely phenomenal) "Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox." So it's fairly understandable how so many people, myself included, who were extremely excited when an animated adaption of Alan Moore's acclaimed graphic novel "Batman: The Killing Joke" was announced, with an R-Rating to boot, making it the first R-Rated DC Universe animated movie. This comic has aged extremely well, and is seen by many as a turning point for the character of the Joker, making him into the more murderous and psychotic criminal we all know and love today, with the book giving a more detailed insight into the character's psychosis than fans had ever seen before. Now, this movie has been released digitally and on DVD. Unfortunately, while by no means all bad, "Batman: The Killing Joke" is a bit of a let down, with entirely new pieces of story being added which only served to lower my score on this one.
Fans of the "Killing Joke" comic book story know that it is a relatively short graphic novel all things considered and it is understandable that Warner Bros may have thought that there was not enough material to fill an hour and a quarter (the average length of one of these animated movies). As a reviewer, let me just say that I am fully aware that sometimes the studio have to make changes to certain elements. However, if the writers are going to add new elements to the movie all I ask is that it fit in with the rest of the story and be just as well written. That, therefore, brings us to my first big criticism of this movie: the first 30 minutes. This is an entirely new first act which sees Batman and Batgirl working together prior to the events of the comic book to bring down a new crime boss in Gotham called Paris Franz (I wish I was joking on that one). Unfortunately, this whole half an hour feels entirely out of place, with all of the new characters introduced not being integrated in anyway into the rest of the main story later on. The whole plot of Batman chasing down a crime boss with no powers, abilities, or even interesting personality (besides a twisted love for Batgirl), also feels very boring and dull, especially considering the Joker comes into the story later on, making the audience completely forget about these early characters. All of the new characters are also stupid and stereotypical to boot: the aforementioned generic mob boss, the British henchman, the much older crime lord, and many more. The whole purpose of this side story is simply to emotional weight to the characters and the events that transpire within the main plot of the story later on. Overall, it feels pointless and out of place.
This is only made worse by the fact that the final 45-50 minutes of the movie are excellently written, and much more entertaining to watch, largely down to the integration of the Joker into the story (after being completely absent for the first act) and his dynamic with Batman and Commissioner Gordon. The Joker's backstory was also a fascinating aspect to see translated to the screen, with the writer's successfully making this murderous psychopath actually slightly sympathetic. That is, until the audience is constantly shocked by the violent and mature acts that are shown on screen. Make no mistake, this is more violent and unlike any animated movie we've ever seen before. However, while I am singing the praises of the writers here with regards this section of the movie, this may be largely down to the fact that scenes of the movie are exact replicas and have dialogue that is word-for-word from it's comic counterpart. The final aspect of the story which I have to mention is the ending. I won't spoil it here, but they absolutely nailed it. Appropriately shocking and ambiguous, the ending leaves the audience speechless as promised by the synopsis and leaves us up to decide what has truly just happened on screen.
Look, there's one more element regarding the story that I just need to talk about. If you've seen the movie or have simply been reading up on the movie recently, there's a fairly high chance you know what I'm talking about. It takes place about 20 minutes into the movie, around two thirds into the dull first act, and you may want to skip this paragraph if you want to avoid absolutely all spoilers revolving around this movie. Still here? Then let's talk about the unbelievable "#Batsex" controversy. Yes, that's right, I can now confirm for myself that this is not some sort of mass joke across the Internet and is actually a part of the movie. So, while Batman and Batgirl are chasing down the new crime boss I mentioned, there is a scene on a rooftop where Batman is trying to convince Batgirl that she needs to leave this particular case alone. As she gets more frustrated, she starts hitting him, eventually pinning him on the floor before....starting to kiss him. What follows isn't shown explicitly, but they do straight up say what happened. This is a downright insult to the character of Barbara Gordon and is included for no reason other than in an attempt to add more emotional depth to the character so that Batman is more emotionally affected by the tragedy that strikes later in the movie. Barbara is absolutely ruined by this scene, and I'll explain why. Rather than being the strong, independent character that she has always been in the comics, able to hold her own without the constant aid of the Batman and continually standing up against his judgement (although there is some of that here), she was never portrayed as the emotionally confused and clingy young woman that is seen here. Her conversations early in the movie with her stereotype friend in the library would be more akin to conversations you would here in a high school between two teenagers than between two adults. Overall, this may be more my reaction as a fan than one any other viewer may have had, but I see this as an insulting and cheap ploy to add some emotional weight to a character with absolutely no regard for the history and personality that they have had in the comics for over 30 years.
Let's move on, however, from one of the major negatives of the movie to one of the big positives: the voice acting is on point throughout, and this was to be expected. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill truly are some of, if not the very best actors to play the characters of Batman and the Joker together over the years. Conroy has voiced the character for so many years and once again delivers a stone cold performance of the Dark Knight, while also doing a great job injecting emotion into the character when describing how close he has come to the edge during his crime fighting career. Mark Hamill once again delivers a suitably insane performance as the Clown Prince of Crime, but he truly shines during the flashback sequences showing the Joker's origin story scattered throughout the movie. These scenes allow Hamill to inject far more emotion into the character than ever before, and it is his performance that makes this character's road to insanity over the course of his "one bad day" actually understandable. The character's suffering and pain is extremely believable and it largely down to this that the audience is able to feel any kind of sympathy or empathy for the character whatsoever. The final main player in the story is Tara Strong as Barbara Gordon/Batgirl. It is mainly in the first act that this character has the time to shine, and Strong does an excellent job of portraying Barbara as an emotional and relatable character, particularly in her feuds and fights with her mentor. However, there is another scene which comes later in a hospital where Strong also does a fantastic job. The rest of the supporting cast also do well although they have got much less to do in the grand scheme of things. The only other character really worth mentioning is Ray Wise who voices Commissioner Gordon. While I'm not going to spoil the extent of his role in the second half of the movie, Wise delivers a very pained performance that is very suitable in the scenes which consistently shock the audience. Overall, there is amazing work across the board from all of the voice actors in the movie.
One aspect of the movie in particular is a very mixed bag. I said much earlier in the review that DC have been outdoing all of their competitors in the animated superhero movie market for years, with excellent animation across the board. The expertise they have persistently shown is present to an extent in this movie. For example, all of the main character's movements and actions look excellent (especially Joker) and are of the standard that fans would have expected from any modern animated movie. The detail that can be seen on these characters is breathtaking and deserves to be commended. The influence of Bruce Timm is particularly clear here. Timm acts as the producer on this movie and was also one of the show runners on the excellent "Batman: The Animated Series." All of the character models look like they have been lifted straight out of that show, which is a nice bit of nostalgia for any long time fans of the character such as myself. However, that said, there are plenty of pieces of animation in the movie that look absolutely terrible. This is completely unacceptable considering today's standards of animation. This never really involves objects or characters in the foreground of frames, but normally in the background. This may seem like a small nitpick to a lot of people but these stick out like a sore thumb. One of the many, many examples of this present throughout the film is in a police chase near the start of the movie. The police cars chasing the large van look incredibly low quality and have not had the sufficient amount of detail applied to them that would be expected of a movie being released in 2016. It only adds insult to injury that the foreground images and characters look so good which means that all of this terrible animation in the background in entirely down to either laziness or a severe lack in budget.
In the end, "Batman: The Killing Joke" is (mostly) a joy for comic book fans, but may infuriate casual viewers in a number of ways. It is undeniable that the first act is only there to add emotional depth to a few certain characters but is an overall weak addition to Alan Moore's fantastic story, with fairly generic plotting and characters throughout the first half hour. Not to mention the lacklustre scene I mentioned earlier, which is guaranteed to infuriate fans of the comic and characters. That's not to mention the background animation in a number of scenes, and you're going to have a much better time if you can ignore that kind of detail. However, this doesn't take away from the positives of the movie. As I said, the second and third acts of the movie are absolutely excellent, and the main characters are all extremely well animated and voice acted. A mixed bag to be sure. DC are undoubtedly still leading the pack with regards their animated features, and "The Killing Joke" comic is definitely worth a read if you get the chance. If you're already a fan of the source material, then I'd say this is worth a watch. If you are just getting into the character and the comics, then it's probably worth checking out a few comics and animated features to enjoy this one more. To be honest, you'll probably enjoy it more. At least #Batsex won't annoy you as much.
Pros
Fantastic voice acting
A compelling and often shocking story
Some great animation on the main characters...
Cons
....But plenty of less than great animation to be found
A dull first act
One particular insulting addition
Rating: 6/10
Release Date: 8th of August, 2016 (DVD Release)
Starring Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Tara Strong, Ray Wise, Robin Atkin Downes, John DiMaggio, Brian George, Maury Sterling, and Nolan North
Look, I've talked my fair share about reboots, and how they have essentially taken over the modern movie industry. As everyone knows, there are plenty of terrible reboots out there that audiences need to avoid at all costs (looking at you, Ghostbusters). However, it's not all doom and gloom. There are a few great movie series which started as reboots and still retained the fans of the original movie or series while also gaining a new following. One prime example of this is the new Star Trek series. Way back in 2009, the classic series was rebooted with a new cast and crew but was still loved by many, partly due to the respectful way it treated the original franchise, showing that this was actually an alternate timeline, while also bringing in the late Leonard Nimoy as an older version of Spock. The movie was an instant hit, and was followed up with a sequel in 2013: "Star Trek: Into Darkness." Now, we have the third instalment in this series, "Star Trek Beyond," with new director Justin Lin at the helm. Unfortunately, the trailers didn't quite get off to the best start, with the first teaser causing many fans to fear that Lin was resorting to his background in the Fast and the Furious franchise for ideas, and those fears have stayed with many right up to release. Fortunately, I am able to say that this is not only an excellent movie for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, but perhaps the best movie in this rebooted series so far.
The plot of the movie sees the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise just under 3 years into their 5-year mission to explore uncharted space when they find themselves under attack by the villainous Krall (played by an unrecognisable Idris Elba) and stranded on a desolate planet. This is all pretty standard stuff for a Star Trek story but stands out through the way it finds time to give all of the main Enterprise members a chance to shine and have some great character moments. Some of these are not as substantial as others, with John Cho's Sulu only have a few great moments while piloting some of the movie's various ships, and Zoe Saldana's Uhura not doing much besides some intriguing exchanges with the film's villains. The same can be said for the late Anton Yelchin's Chekov, but he still has a fun dynamic with Chis Pine's Captain Kirk as the two are stranded together. The latter character is of course the stand-out performance in the movie and is given the most development of all. Pine delivers a suitably emotional and believable performance as it becomes clear that Kirk is still trying to figure out his place as Captain and whether or not he is worthy to be a part of Star Fleet. The other excellent dynamic the movie has is between Karl Urban's Bones and Zachary Quinto's Spock, and this is where much of the movie's humour stems from. The two have quite a few funny exchanges, with Bones' sarcastic personality clashing with Spock's literal and logical character, but they still have some emotional and personal moments throughout the movie. It's great that writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung managed to include all of these amazing moments for the main crew, while still implementing the humour and intense action this new series has been renowned for.
However, with every new instalment in a series comes the addition of new characters, both friendly and villainous. The movie has a couple of notable additions, including Sofia Boutella's Jaylah. This alien character is an excellent addition to the franchise, not only being an excellent warrior and sharing several funny moments with Simon Pegg's Scotty, but also being given a satisfying and emotional backstory that makes her motivations in the story believable. However, it is Idris Elba's performance as Krall, the villain of the piece, that is the real highlight of the new characters. Although he may initially appear to be a generic bad guy for the crew to face, hints are given throughout the story about his true nature and motivations. By the time these fully come to light in the third act, the character is far from typical and is instantly set apart from the other villains of the series. This is partly down to Idris Elba's extremely devoted and intense performance, with the actor clearly committed to the voice and mannerisms of the character, but still being able to show genuine emotion under all the make-up that he has received to make him look like an alien that belongs in the Star Trek universe.
The writing of the movie, however, is where I have my one major problem with this entry. Indeed, it's true that characters are consistently well-written and are each interesting in their own ways. It's also true that humour is implemented well into the movie throughout, with the jokes never feeling out of place and always suitable based on the characters sharing the dialogue and the situations they are in. However, where I do have a problem is in the pacing of the movie and the handling of various subplots, particularly near the beginning. The movie kicks off into the action very quickly, with little time being spent with the Enterprise crew on board the ship or the space station they later dock in. Therefore, the setting up of different plot lines feels very rushed as they are regulated to a single line of dialogue just so it could be raised again for a more substantial conversation later on. However, chances are you'll have forgotten that a fair amount of these lines even happened and thus won't be affected in any way when they are discussed at length. One example of this that I found is that (surprise, surprise for any fans of this new series), Spock and Uhura are having relationship troubles again! This is casually hinted at and spoken of around 10 minutes in for all of 2 minutes and then dropped for another 45 minutes to an hour. It became extremely clear that the only purpose this served in the movie is to allow for one of those character moments I discussed earlier. It would have been more satisfying, however, if these has been developed more thoroughly throughout the movie up to these moments, thus allowing for a more emotional impact for the audience.
However, where I cannot fault the movie in any way is in it's action sequences. The stand-out set piece of the movie is the much-hyped destruction of the Enterprise which has been heavily advertised in the trailers. Many fans cried out that this was unoriginal and may not entertain as much given that we've seen the Enterprise being destroyed in many Star Trek movies before this, including the first and second instalments of this series. However, I can promise that you have never seen it done as well as this. The sequence is constantly intense and heart-racing as you see the crew pulled apart and separated by Krall and his forces, instantly cementing them as a formidable enemy. The combat, both with futuristic firearms and hand-to-hand action, is excellently choreographed and the stakes of each encounter always feel high and real. There are plenty of other great set pieces strung throughout the movie is well, keeping a good mix and dramatic and action-packed moments. These sequences include the scenes with the motorcycle (don't worry, Star Trek fans, it surprisingly works and doesn't feel out of place), and the finale which has been shown off more in the most recent trailers and TV spots. As I said, many feared Justin Lin using his Fast and the Furious experience too much in making this movie. However, it's clear that, in the action department especially, he certainly used it to his advantage.
Needless to say, continuing the excellent work of the series so far, the visual effects in the movie are on point. The CGI used to create the Enterprise, the futuristic weaponry, and especially the creation of the newest Federation space station, Yorktown, is all beautiful and is guaranteed to make your jaw drop as you see it in action on the big screen for the first time. All of these effects look incredibly realistic and never break the immersion of the audience in what is actually happening on screen at the time. However, it is also admirable that director Justin Lin and the rest of the filmmakers opted to make use of practical effects and stunt work in addition to the use of CGI. I'm not saying that other movies do not use this as well, but, with all the recent advancements in modern computer effects, it can be difficult to resist just using CGI to create these stunts. However, the best example of the phenomenal stunt work and practical effects in use here are the aforementioned motorcycle sequence. All of the stunts pulled off here are incredible to watch and the use of practical effects work only help to make everything happening on screen seem much more realistic and believable. Well, as realistic as it can be anyway.
There's plenty of other aspects of the movie which deserve to be commended. All of the technical and set work in the movie is on point, with some superb cinematography work on display, particularly during the close combat fight scenes, such as between Jaylah and Krall's lieutenant. It is very easy to see what is going on in these scenes. The set design in the movie is incredible, with the returning Enterprise set among other new ship designs, the Federation space station and Krall's base of operations being the stand outs. It is remarkable that designers can give these areas such as distinctly alien feel, and yet still feel realistic and familiar to the audience. The make-up artists also deserve a special mention, with plenty of incredible alien designs made up with practical make-up. The stand-outs of these are of course Jaylah and Krall, but some cast members playing alien members of the Enterprise have also undergone incredible transformations. You'll see the ones I'm talking about when you see the movie. Finally, the soundtrack of the movie is excellent. Of course, the soundtrack is composed by Michael Giacchino, so this is to be expected, but this music is spectacular throughout the entire movie and matches up perfectly with every scene.
Very few franchises have been going for as long as Star Trek has. The series began 50 years ago and was revolutionary at the time, implementing ground-breaking special effects, and creating career-defining roles for many actors. It is only more incredible that, in 2016, the franchise has retained it's quality and is still an iconic part of the sic-fi genre. "Star Trek Beyond" is a fantastic addition to this rebooted series, and the franchise as a whole. Only a few underdeveloped subplots bring the movie down, but that is only a small gripe in a movie with some many well-done elements. With excellent character development across the board, a genuinely intimidating villain, and some extremely well executed visuals and technical work behind the scenes, this movie is well worth a watch. Even if you don't watch a great deal of sci-fi, chances are you'll find something to enjoy watching this movie.
Pros
Great character moments for all the main characters
Idris Elba's villain
Stunning visual effects
Phenomenal action set pieces
Superb technical work
The soundtrack
Cons
Some underdeveloped plot points near the beginning
Rating: 9/10
Release Date: 22nd July, 2016
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Shohreh Aghdashloo
The original Ghostbusters was released in 1984 and has since grown quite the cult following, and rightly so. Adored by critics and audiences alike, the movie took a more comedic approach to the ghost genre than had been seen before, incorporating more humorous elements than there is to be found in movies like The Exorcist or Poltergeist. Mix that with revolutionary visual effects, excellent acting and the brilliant script by starts Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the movie proved to be a massive success. The 1989 sequel, however, was not so well received universally, and proved far more divisive than the original. Since then, the Ghostbusters have been absent from the big screen. Until now. Under the direction of Paul Feig, we now have an all-new, all-female crew of Ghostbusters ready to answer the call. Before I give my thoughts, I have to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not a sexist. There has possibly never been a more divisive reception to a movie than the one this one received, with some praising the new direction, while others cried out that it was destroying their childhood nostalgia through an unnecessary reboot of the franchise. Many typically dismissed these critics and naysayers as being sexists, more upset that the movie was now being led by a group of women than anything else. OK, no. That is not the case. The cast of this movie are talented, with all four leads having proven themselves to be capable of good acting and comedy. Everything I am about to say is down to having seen the final product itself, not the new direction it has taken over the original. That said, this movie is an absolute disaster that you should not consider seeing. There are a few good things in here, but they are far outnumbered by the terrible creative decisions and faults on display.
Look, as I said above, the new cast are all incredibly talented people. Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Chris Hemsworth have all done great work in movies over the last couple of years, while Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are perhaps better known for their excellent comedy work on Saturday Night Live. I had my doubts just like everyone else from the announcement of this project, but I thought that at least this cast would be able to do great work and deliver some memorable performances, even if everything else in the movie wasn't particularly great. However, there are only a few good performances to be found here. Kate McKinnon easily gives the best performance of the lead four as the scientist Holtzmann, committing to the quirky and slightly insane personality of the character. Chris Hemsworth also does a great job as handsome but idiotic receptionist Kevin, and his introduction is probably the funniest part of the movie to me. However, even this humour starts to grow old by the second scene he is in, as his stupidness rises to completely unrealistic levels. These scenes do more to make the audience cringe than chuckle. Every other character, on the other hand, acts as an individual stereotype. Melissa McCarthy is given nothing to do as the ghost fanatic, Kristen Wiig goes through a painfully predictable character arc as the skeptical scientist, and Leslie Jones is irritatingly upbeat and cringeworthy as she screams and shouts her way through the later scenes in the movie. That's not even mentioning the villain who's main personality trait is that he's a villain. He is given literally no backstory or motivations for his actions in the movie, and Neil Casey's performance is unforgivably bad. This character is a sad and pathetic excuse for the villain of the piece.
The movie is marketed as a comedy and Paul Feig has directed a few comedies which have been reviewed well in the past, such as Bridesmaids and Spy (both also starring Melissa McCarthy). However, the movie is incredibly immature with a great deal of it's humour, with the first proper joke of the movie resorting to toilet humour with plenty more examples thereafter, while the majority of the rest of the humour falls flat. However, the script does not only fail to be funny, but also to build realistic character dynamics throughout the movie. For example, at the beginning of the movie, Kristen Wiig is estranged from Melissa McCarthy, with the movie showing that they used to be partners and even wrote a book together, before they grew apart due to Kristen Wiig wanting to pursue a more serious and well-respected career, while McCarthy continued to hunt and study paranormal activity. They are drawn back together but McCarthy clearly shows a sense of having been betrayed and abandoned. However, one or two scenes later, they are acting like best friends again, as if the feud between them has never existed. Feig takes no time to rebuild the sense of trust, friendship and a mutual love of studying the paranormal before throwing them into a team together. This is only one example of the unrealistic dynamics and decisions in the script. However, despite failing to include potentially important and interesting character moments like these, the movie still suffers from feeling overly long and bloated. The pacing in the movie is terrible, and will make the 116-minute running time feel like considerably longer than it actually is.
Let's now turn away from the acting and writing of the movie to the more technical aspects, and in particular the visual effects. As I previously mentioned, the original Ghostbusters was renowned for it's effects works, using a mix of practical effects and CGI elements which were seen an incredible and revolutionary at the time of release. However, this movie relies heavily on computer-generated effects, yet somehow manages to make the ghosts and ghouls on display seen way less realistic. While both the original movie and it's sequels opted to have the ghosts take on a human form initially, perhaps with a slight artificial light coming off of them, thus making it much more frightening when they did change their form in order to scare the Ghostbusters and other people (just remember the opening ghost in the library sequence). However, in this movie, the filmmakers took the strange decision to have the ghosts surrounding by a neon light the entire time they were on screen, and had very little human features about them at all. It doesn't help as well that the majority of the spectres that the Ghostbusters face off against are not human ghosts, with the most notable ghosts on show here being a winged gargoyle demon, a parade of balloons, and the returning Slimer. It is impossible for the audience to become immersed in this world due to the ridiculous CGI, which begins to severely drop in quality towards the end of the movie with so many ghosts on screen at once. Many are not given the appropriate attention to detail that would be expected from a big-budget, summer blockbuster and it is very noticeable. However, credit where credit's due, the effects on the Ghostbusters' gadgets and weaponry is impressive and should be commended.
There isn't a great deal of fun to be had here, as you can tell so far. However, where audiences should have a good time with the movie is in the action sequences. Unfortunately, these are few and far between in the movie, with the Ghostbusters surprisingly not doing much ghostbusting besides one scene and the finale, but what I did see left me wishing they had included more. I just mentioned the gadgetry used by the team in this movie, and this contributes greatly to making these scenes feel fresh and different from what we've seen before. Rather than being restricted to the standard issue proton pack, the crew also have access to proton pistols, a proton shotgun, proton hand grenades and hints a whole load more weaponry to be seen in the future. At the very least, the movie embraces the silliness of the action sequences, and has the team flying through the air, fighting a fair variety of evil ghouls. Even if it may not hold up for the majority of the film's runtime, I'm thankful to Paul Feig for at least using modern effects and technology to incorporate a variety of spirits that we've never seen before and have far more intense (and thus enjoyable) action sequences that simply weren't possible in the original Ghostbusters movies.
However, there are other technical aspects which go into making a movie, and these are unfortunately just as bad as the CGI used in the finale. One particular aspect that I have to point out here is the editing. I would normally never pick on something so small and trivial that wouldn't normally be examined or criticised by the average filmgoer, but this is a special case. The editing of the movie is horrendous. On multiple occasions, characters will be shown to be standing quietly despite audio playing with them supposedly speaking. That's not to mention a whole host of obvious continuity errors, even surrounding crucial parts of the movie such as the costumes and the car. There's plenty of other elements such as cinematography, and these are handled well but are nothing particularly special. The set and costume design are also handled well, although they are also fairly stereotypical, containing all of the typical elements you might expect from a mad scientist's lab, a hotel set, a haunted house, and the Ghostbusters lab itself. Overall, there's nothing to be seen here that hasn't been seen before.
Look, since this movie chose to use the Ghostbusters name rather than become a completely new series also focusing on ghosts, there's no way to write this review without comparing it to the original movies in some degree, and in particular mentioning how it handles the call backs and references to these movies. In short, these parts of the movie are insulting and pathetic to the Ghostbusters legacy. All of the references in the movie are included as blatant pandering to fans of the original, a desperate attempt to encourage them to see this new movie based entirely on nostalgia for the old series. Not only this, but there are cameos galore here, with plenty of the major players from the original movie making an appearance in some shape or form. However, pretty much all of these are distracting and irritating, adding nothing to the movie. It doesn't help that it is clear that plenty of the original cast members did not want to be there, but were perhaps forced into it by the studios or some part of their contracts. It's particularly obvious that this was the case with one cast member who plays the role of a paranormal debunker. If you've seen the movie, you know who I'm talking about. Make no mistake, if you only want to see this movie for the references to the old movie, there's plenty to be seen here. Just be warned, they are not handled in a way that honours that movie, but rather make it unclear whether or not the filmmakers wanted this movie to be a completely separate entity from those original movies or if it wanted to be tied to them, perhaps initially pitched as a sequel set years after the events of the original. The movie is clearly haunted by the ghosts of it's past (sorry for the pun).
To sum up, this movie has far too many problems for even the most die-hard fans of the franchise to forgive. Admittedly, there are some good parts to the movies, including the inventive action set pieces and a few good characters who are the highlights of the cast. However, this is not nearly enough to save the movie considering the whole host of problems the movie is weighed down with. Terrible writing, a large amount of terribly handled technical elements, and plenty of underdeveloped and painfully written characters all play a part in bringing the movie down, not to mention it's unfortunate and often insulting ties to the original. Again, I am not hating on this movie because it is led by a female cast and it may be considered the fashionable thing to do. I am describing and telling you all of these issues because that is the job of a reviewer. I appreciate and respect that the filmmakers were trying a different approach to the idea of the Ghostbusters, but that does not mean I am not going to show why you should avoid seeing this unfortunately terrible movie.
Pros
Some fun action sequences
A couple of good characters...
Cons
But way more stereotypes and terrible characters
Unfunny and unrealistic writing
Horrendous cameos
Ridiculous CGI
Editing
Terrible pacing
Insults the legacy of the original movie
Rating: 2/10
Release Date: 11th July, 2016
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Cecily Strong, Andy Garcia, Neil Casey, and Charles Dance
The original "Now You See Me" was released way back in 2013, and is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I know it has problems, and I know I should be more critical of it than I am, but it is just such a fun movie that doesn't take itself seriously that I just sit back and relax watching it. It boasted a stellar cast, some great set pieces, and the use of magicians and illusions was a unique selling point that set it apart from other heist movies. Now, 3 years later, we have the sequel (which should have titled "Now You Don't" but never mind), which sees the return of the Four Horsemen and pits them against a new threat in the form of Daniel Radcliffe (not quite the return of Harry Potter fans were expecting but I'll take it). However, director Jon M. Chu makes a few mistakes that I have to point out here. Although not a terrible movie, and it has some good moments, this sequel unfortunately falls short of the original.
Since this is a sequel, spoilers within for the first "Now You See Me." As you should know if you're thinking about seeing this movie (or maybe you just don't care), the first movie ended with the reveal that FBI Dylan Rhodes (played by Mark Ruffalo) had in fact been orchestrating the acts and plans of the main Four Horsemen as part of a revenge plot 30 years in the making. The sequel picks up around one year after this reveal, with the Four Horsemen (now with new member Lizzy Caplan due to Isla Fisher being unable to be a part of the movie) being drawn out of hiding and lured into a trap by a new threat. Now separated from their handler Rhodes, the Horsemen must use all of their ingenuity and magic know-how to pull off yet another impossible heist. However, while the original made a point of explaining the magic and tricks on show, this one lacks the logic and reasoning behind all of it's set pieces. There are plenty of plot holes in the movie and there are just too many to ignore. Honestly, in a movie focusing on magicians using tricks and illusions to pull off heists, I know suspension of disbelief is required, but good luck not having a laugh at the lack of reason throughout this one.
The movie also has a significant lack of any real character development. Easily the best character in the movie is Mark Ruffalo's Dylan Rhodes. The movie takes the opportunity to really dive into the character's motivations for his actions in the first movie and he has a very engaging subplot with Morgan Freeman's Thaddeus Bradley who he holds partly responsible for his father's death. Buffalo is an incredible actor and he gives a very emotional performance in the movie, making him the most likeable and relatable character in the movie. The only other character in the movie who gets any sort of development is Daniel Radcliffe's villainous Walter. Radcliffe's gives a hilarious and very memorable performance in the movie and his character becomes more developed as more about him and his true nature is revealed as the plot progresses.
The other characters in the movie, on the other hand, aren't particularly memorable. Most of them are completely one-dimensional: Jesse Eisenberg is playing his usual arrogant character once again in Daniel Atlas and doesn't want to listen to authority, Dave Franco plays Jack Wilder who has no personality other than being the young, token "cool guy" of the group, and Michael Caine is playing angry Michael Caine. However, while these characters are essentially harmless, there are a couple of really annoying characters in the movie. Although I later started to warm to her and grew used to her humour, Lizzy Caplan's Lula is initially overly energetic and is very annoying. She's also shoe-horned into a pathetic romantic subplot with Wilder, which only caused me to groan every time it was brought up. However, Caplan is trying her best at least and her character does not even compare to Woody Harrelson in this movie. Now, Woody Harrelson is a good actor and he has done some terrific work before. While his returning character from the first movie isn't a problem, something that hasn't been heavily advertised (and for good reason) is that he also plays the character's twin brother in the movie, who works alongside Radcliffe's character. And boy is he annoying. At times, the character verges into Jar Jar Binks territory with how much he will irritate the audience. Every scene he is a part of is easily the worst parts of the movie.
However, chances are plenty of people aren't going to go and see this movie for aspects of filmmaking like character development and a logical plot. The majority of people are going to see this movie based on the fun action and set pieces that the first movie was praised for. Thankfully, there are plenty of these in the movie. From a ludicrous but still extremely enjoyable sequence with a playing card to the heavily advertised set piece finale in London (which features the incredible money shot of every trailer with Eisenberg disappearing in the rain), there is never a dull moment throughout this movie. That is, assuming, like I said, that you can just turn off your brain and not think too much about the reason and logic behind what you are watching on screen.
The technical aspects of the movie are a mixed bag to say the least. For the most part the visual effects of the movie are on point. There is a nice mix of CGI and practical effects on display, all of which look very convincing when in use. One prime example of where these two blend particularly well is in the aforementioned playing card sequence. Effects are obviously required in order to allow this scene to be in the movie as there is no way that the actors would be able to pull off these very difficult, if not impossible, card throws and tricks. Where the CGI is used, it is very hard to identify and pick out, and the sequence consistently looks realistic. Talking about this scene also allows me to pinpoint and praise the cinematography of the movie. All shots in the movie are very clear and it is easy to notice every detail the filmmakers were clearly hoping for the audience to see. The various tracking shots throughout the movie also deserve to be commended, which is why I mentioned the card sequence when talking about this aspect of the movie, with the camera impressively following the card at close range as it is passed from person to person. However, the technical parts of the movie aren't all great. The editing in particular is an issue which has to be talked about, and this was evident from the trailers months in advance. Very frequently shots will cut away far too early and character's mouths will not line up with what they are supposedly saying.
Overall, "Now You See Me 2" is a very mixed bag. There is a great deal to criticise here, particularly surrounding the one-dimensional and often annoying characters as well as the plot which is illogical even by the standards of the original, which at least took the time to explain how everything we were seeing was happening. However, the good outweighs the bad with this movie. The technical aspects of the movie were on point for the most part, particularly with regards the visual effects, there are some great action-packed set pieces throughout, and a couple of noteworthy performances which need to be highlighted. If you cannot enjoy a movie without a logical plot and sufficient character development, then I'd say give this one a miss. However, a movie is meant to entertain audiences and keep them engaged for a few hours. If you can turn your brain off and just have fun with this one, then you'll have a good time watching this movie.
Pros
Fun set pieces
Some great performances
Great visual effects
Cinematography
Cons
Lack of significant character development
Some irritating characters
Removes the logic and explanations of the original
Bad editing
Rating: 6/10
Release Date: 4th July, 2016
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Lizzy Caplan, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Daniel Radcliffe, Morgan Freeman, Jay Chou and Michael Caine
