The Jungle Book (2016) ***½/5: A good film but there are some deficiencies with the visual presentation. This remake could have been more extensive or elaborate.

(photo courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com)

The Jungle Book is a good film but there were some notable deficiencies in its presentation. The irony here is that most people have praised the visual elements in this film yet I was not as impressed as I watched it in 3D. The visuals were good particularly the CGI creation of the jungle and animals etc but sometimes I was too conscious that I was looking at a green screen. The visuals did not necessarily make the story more effective in my opinion and this is where the deficiencies set in. There are some interesting moments that could have been much more effective if this remake went against some of the traditional elements associated with the original and the stories told by Kipling.  A genuine remake would have been more effective than just sticking to what’s already known. The movie could have been so much more than its American centric approach. The visuals in Life of Pi were more effective in terms of story.

This film stars Neel Sethi as Mowgli an orphan in the Indian jungle raised by wolves. Following the threat of the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) Mowgli leaves the pack to return to human civilization escorted by the black panther, Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) and the bear Baloo (Bill Murray). Mowgli must learn to accept who he is as a man cub in the jungle especially as the threat of Shere Khan looms.

Positives

The primary positive as everyone knows is the visuals on display. It has been reported that everything was created by computer and this means that the CGI on display must be at a very high level, from the creation of the jungle to the creation of the animals. If it is true that all the visuals, except Mowgli, were created in such a manner then it’s very impressive. It can also seem very artificial.  At times the visuals were so good that I felt that I was looking at a green screen. This is the price we pay for great visuals. Some of the settings in the film were truly creepy or full of suspense such as when Mowgli interacts with the snake, Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) or when Shere Khan is at his menacing best.  There is not much more to be said about the visuals apart from go and see it yourself but to beware of the artificial feel that comes with it.

The story is somewhat interesting particularly when it comes to the interpretation of the world by the animals. I’m a big fan of nature but I would not want to be instructed by a black panther or a bear or a pack of wolves. There is only so much they can know which doesn’t make it interesting. There is an attempt to make some of the instructions that Mowgli receives seem profound but it falls flat and more or less reflects the smallness of the world inhabited by these animals. There is no real attempt to go big here. The narration by Kingsley as Bagheera is pretty good despite the limited scope or lack of profundity. One can see how the plot device about Mowgli having to return to the village sets the stage for his interaction with several characters outside of the wolf pack and Bagheera. He is almost swallowed whole by a python, meets a lazy bear, interacts with and then confronts a giant orangutan called King Louie (Christopher Walken).  He then returns to face Shere Khan. There is also some interaction with the Elephants and one does get some sense of how their size has a impact on the environment. It’s very surprising that the elephants don’t talk. Why do some animals talk and others don’t? There is also the issue of fire or the red flower which is a very important plot point especially since fire is seen as the primary reason for man’s power. Mowgli’s tool making abilities or ‘tricks’ don’t seem as profound to the animals as fire (interesting) until the end. I wonder how they will react when Mowgli is able to create and wield a spear.

The voice acting is pretty good. I liked Idris Alba as Shere Khan. The others were good but Shere Khan really does have a menacing presence in this film and a lot of it is due to Idris Elba’s voice acting. Kingsley as Bagheera is like the typical father figure and Bill Murray as Baloo is there for comic relief. Christopher Walken as King Louie comes across as a typical gangster and Scarlett Johansson as the snake Kaa probably could have gotten more screen time.

There are a lot of lessons about the jungle that Mowgli does learn and are used to good effect when it matters.

Negatives

The primary negative is that some of the visuals don’t support a character like Mowgli and this would have called for a more extensive reimagining of the character and how he actually interacts with the jungle. The director Jon Favreau and his writers take the angle that this is just like a cartoon even though it’s partly live action. In this day and age we’re having live action where a character talks to animals like Dr. Dolittle. Is it that Mowgli has a similar gift? He speaks to them in such a candid manner as if he’s speaking to regular people. If this film was a more extensive reimagining of the subject and not just a mere remake then the creators would have found ways to make Mowgli’s interaction with the jungle much more interesting. What kind of languages do bear, wolves, tigers, monkeys and snakes speak? What is their actual language apart from English? The perspective of another human would have been more interesting especially when he or she sees young mowgli walking side by side with a black panther or a bear. At least we would get to see how they are really interacting. Most animals are limited in terms of communication and this is why they are not on our level. Mowgli shouldn’t even be able to speak English extensively based on his own story so it would be interesting to get the perspective of another human character. In the eyes of another human character mowgli would be doing a lot of grunts and gesticulations like a animal. Why does mowgli walk so casually upright? One would expect him to attempt to emulate the quadrupeds (four legged animals) some more. There is nothing wrong with him walking upright but not enough of him truly moving like he was raised in the jungle.

I was not impressed with how Neel Sethi moved as Mowgli and one could tell that he was uncomfortable in some areas. In a animated film it wouldn’t be an issue and the movements of Mowgli would have been more effective. In live action Mowgli’s movement through jungle barefooted and with only a loin cloth does not capture the hazards of the area sufficiently. He runs as if he’s afraid to buck or bump his toe or worried that his feet would be pricked.

This is the advantage of having everything shot in front of a green screen.  Filmmakers no longer have to go on location and so it’s a reversion to the old days where films were made entirely in the studio to cut costs. Oh how little we have advanced. I didn’t even get a sense of India. I am assuming that the story takes place in India so why not some more representation of India. Give us a shot of the Himalayas for Christ sake and invent some story about its legend. A story about the Himalayas being the home of the gods etc.   I never knew there was such a large population of rhinos in India. The elephants look more like African elephants than Indian ones. Baloo does not seem like a typical Indian bear. Looks more like the kind of bear you find in America. And since when do wolves co exist with a tiger. Neel as Mowgli might have the Indian look but he doesn’t act Indian at all and so we’re still  imbibing American values. He speaks American to appeal to American audiences but he has the look of an Indian. Is this still 1967? In this day and age a more extensive reimagining of the story would have required some more of the Indian perspective; more of the Indian mythology etc and how these animals fit in.

These deficiencies in presentation means that the creators had the opportunity to truly remake Rudyard Kipling’s basic jungle stories but instead decided to play it safe. This is a Disney film after all and the major market for movies is still America. Life of Pi, however, did it right. In Life of Pi I got a true sense of India but that was a more mature film so The Jungle Book is exactly what the children deserve. A good film for children but very limited and it won’t have lasting appeal because they did not reinvent the wheel in any considerable way. 

What I expect from Captain America: Civil War and why I am team Iron Man?

(photo courtesy of marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com)

While in an earlier post I commented that Captain America: Civil War, along with Batman vs. Superman, means that the golden age of superhero films are coming to an end, I am actually looking forward to it for various reasons.  I have read some great reviews so far about the emotional resonance in this film which will be welcome since films in the marvel cinematic universe are mostly superficial in their conception. The main reason I am interested in this film is the schism between Captain America and Iron Man. It has finally come after being hinted at since the first Avengers film in 2012. Also what I have come to realize over the course of the many films released in the marvel cinematic universe is that I have become a supporter of Iron Man/Tony Stark and have come to loathe Captain America/Steve Rogers. Iron Man does represent big business, progressive and innovative forces whereas the Captain represents the petty bourgeois moral standpoint and the highest form of American idealism. This moral and idealistic standpoint can also be seen as a reactionary or conservative element that is stagnant because it denies the material forces at work or it can be seen as progressive as many people fail to strive towards the ideal.  The primary difference between the 2 is that Stark knows how to put his money where his mouth is and the captain can only offer grand rhetoric about nobility and freedom.  Steve can try and motivate people but he can’t really get things going. He can’t build anything because all he has is physicality or brawn.

Well the basic plot of the film is that a rift between the Avengers will occur because of the Sokovia accords drafted by the U.N which is dominated by the U.S.A.  The team led by Captain America doesn’t support superhero registration and government control of their actions whereas Team Iron Man is pro registration and believe that the heroes should be kept in check. Why I support Team Iron Man is that in the world we live most ordinary people like myself would be calling for some government oversight. Without oversight it means that superheroes could challenge the jurisdiction of any country with impunity. If a man like Steve Rogers feels like he is above the law then what’s stopping him from doing questionable acts. Tony Stark realized that when he created Ultron albeit with the best intentions. Stark was originally the one who flaunted his individualism but with Ultron he realized that there are limits. He rightfully acknowledges his failure especially as he is chiefly responsible for creating and managing the Avengers team. He finances a large part of the Avengers operation.  He was the first one that started questioning the authority of SHIELD before it collapsed in The Winter Soldier. Check the first Avengers film. Just like in the civil war comic book storyline Stark wants to assume more control of an operation that he is largely responsible for. In order to do that he will need the support of the government. Most capitalists seeking to control a particular sphere will turn to the government. He is more of a boss of the Avengers than Captain America because he is more responsible for the operations of the Avengers outfit that emerged following the collapse of SHIELD. Captain America is just a man who flaunts his legacy as a super soldier with the stars and stripes suit. He is outdated. He has no means to make things happen especially in terms of building operations. He can train the new Avengers but when it really matters can he make things happen especially in terms of operations. He is no more than a petty bourgeois/middle class worker or a skilled fighter in the superhero ranks.  It’s clear then that in Civil War there is a leadership struggle between the big capitalist and the petty bourgeois/middle class individual. In a capitalist society there is only one winner. Captain America is not a revolutionary and so he won’t be prepared to overturn the status quo like Bane did in TDKR. He couldn’t because that would make him an outright villain.

Now  I understand that there must be a villain involved and that Cap cares a lot for his friend the winter soldier but it still does not change the fact that in the real world individuals like superheroes would be regulated. If Batman did not have the tacit approval of the people of Gotham city and the police force then he could not act the way he does.  Batman is strong but he’s not that powerful because he still relies on the state to imprison the criminals. The only way someone like Cap could truly flout the law is if he had Superman or Hulk like power. In such a case that would be understandable. Someone with Superman or hulk like power could not be really controlled unless by very extreme means such as Nuclear power. In The Age of Ultron it was revealed that Stark and Bruce Banner designed the veronica system to keep the Hulk in check but with a superman it would be more difficult. I am just saying that very extreme measures would have to be employed for individuals with tremendous power. Captain America is strong for a human being on steroids or a special serum but he has not been a very effective superhero in most of the big films related to the Avengers.  He played a very minor role in the defeat of Loki and was relegated to saving civilians and laying out the tactics. He was only slightly above Hawkeye and Black Widow because of the steroids/or super soldier serum and his shield.  In the battle against Ultron he also played a minor role. All Cap has is talk in the big moments. A lot of talk. For instance when the city was floating in The Age of Ultron he wanted a solution that didn’t involve blowing up the rock. Blowing up the rock was the same as an escape plan in his mind. He had no bearing on what was going on in terms of solving the problem but he was very demanding in terms of having Iron man find a miraculous solution. That is when I had enough of him.  If it wasn’t for Nick Fury providing some real assistance then Captain America would look like a major buffoon. A man truly out of touch.

Even before Civil War we have seen internal conflict before in Iron Man; the film that launched the marvel cinematic universe in grand style. The main reason Iron Man started flouting regulation was due to the events that happened in that film as a result of Obadiah Stane’s treachery. Previously, Stark was prepared to accept government supervision especially as the US military was his biggest client. He went in a new direction but was then thwarted again with the creation of Ultron. He clearly reached another limit. With the avengers team Stark became involved with a social movement that went against his new found individualism but he responded to it with his own finances however after Ultron he is now back in the fold. No individual can survive without the government in their own country. The government for all its flaws represents the collective in society which is bigger than any individual or corporation. Stark finally  realizes that. Cap can’t seem to fathom it because of his idealism and Hydra’s infiltration of SHIELD. What can he do but run and hide and fight through a couple situations.  If Cap was able to build something concrete apart from just talk then he would have more reason to take the position that he does.

Cap can only challenge the system with ideals but ideals are never enough. His approach worked in The Winter Soldier because the system operated without limits. In the real world the best governments have various checks and balances no matter how imperfect.  The Russos and their team of writers must be blamed because the Hydra plan just made government look too callous. It’s not like World War 2 where you could blame the attack on the Japanese. Who would the Americans have blamed with such an attack from Project Insight? Conspiracy theorists say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in order to go to war and the creative team behind Captain America seem to be in line with that strand of thought. This is why in Civil War Cap is wary of state control because the message seems to be that it is inherently evil or destructive.  The creative team behind Captain America give the impression that most of the major battles are fought from within society which is why there is a culmination of cap’s trilogy with Civil War. This would also explain why Cap has some very ineffective villains outside of government.  The Red Skull and Hydra will forever haunt Cap. He seems to be embracing the Red Skull’s philosophy by breaking out on his own so that he can pursue his own agenda. Even if his friend was controlled by the state and made to assassinate people, he is still accountable. Someone has to answer for his crimes. By doing what he does in supporting his friend who is a criminal then Cap is basically acting in a way that people will fear when superheroes are under no control or supervision. He answers to no one but the American ideal. The Avengers: Infinity Wars will be a much more effective film if the heroes fight alongside the various national governments. It will make the fight against Thanos much more believable than to think that it’s only a fight for the superheroes.

What is this American ideal that Cap clings to so stubbornly? Well it would be simple to say that Cap has a lot of national pride. He went to war for his country so that people could be free. What people I don’t know because the Soviets played a greater role than the Americans in defeating Nazi Germany. The impression given in the Captain America storyline is that it was a noble war effort. Was hydra responsible for the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbour and what would Captain America have done if he found out? Would he still want to be Captain America? America had an independence war (1775-83)  that gave them independence from Britain but slavery still existed in the South. The blacks were an oppressed class when Captain America was around during WW2 yet he was willing to embrace the white American ideal. Who was he really fighting for and are his efforts any greater than Lincoln’s? Does the American ideal have to do with small government so that the individual can thrive and be free? If so then why do the individuals depend on the state to implement checks and balances? Was there ever a time when the state was not crucial in a big way? Is the idea of small government a myth particularly when the collective grows? How does Cap account for the civilians that he wants to be free? He thinks that only by saving them then everything is fine. Not so. Can Cap put systems in place whereby the Avengers don’t come across as just another arm of the US military? Can Cap create anything of use that will make him truly able to implement his idealistic vision regarding regulation? In the end Cap cannot answer those questions because he does not have the means to build anything. All he has is rhetoric.

Iron Man on the other hand was able to go his own route because he had the means to do so. He reinvented himself after the mini collapse of his company. He contributed to building the Avengers with his own resources although he created Ultron. He has played a more significant role in the major events involving the Avengers and he knows how to accept change. In the beginning he was dependent on the state and now it’s no different. Cap is fighting to attain the perfect good in society but he doesn’t realize that corrupt and criminal elements always surface and so you have to live with them in some uneasy alliance to a lesser or greater degree. If Cap is fighting for the cleanest government and for people to be free then he has a lot more work to do. How will Cap tackle income inequality, crime in the inner cities, the need for welfare amongst the poor? What can he really build that will make him completely different from the government?

Seeing that cap is not revolutionary then what is his political objective? He is challenging sinister forces but sinister forces always emerge in the long run. If he was revolutionary then he would have to do some drastic things and he would have to be clear about what he is fighting to change in society apart from the Sokovia accords. He would have to offer a radical alternative but can he really do it apart from saving his friend Bucky. It all goes back to what he’s really fighting for. If he’s just fighting for his friend then what kind of hero is he really? One weakness of marvel so far is that the Avengers mainly fight amongst themselves or create their own problems particularly in The Age of Ultron. Whether Cap likes it or not the Avengers have created a new type of order that must come with its own rules or way of doing things. The understanding that I have gotten from the MCU is that The Avengers have basically replaced SHIELD. They are an arm of the US government whether they like it or not. Everything they do reflects on America’s interests and when they have to wage war with Thanos in Infinity Wars the Avengers fight will be more effective on screen if they fight alongside the many national governments throughout the world, especially the US government. Cap going rogue is therefore counterproductive for the real battles to come and this is why I side with Iron Man who realized that the real fight will come from outer space in the form of Thanos. If the fight against Thanos is for the superheroes alone then it will be a very superficial encounter indeed. Having national governments standby and watch the superheroes do their thing is not very realistic. It will be better if the superheroes are the spearhead in attack against the forces of Thanos. The battles on the ground will inevitably be fought by real world, ordinary soldiers.

Well I am just saying that I side with Iron Man because his position conforms to the real world. Captain America’s idealism is not very appealing to me because I am not sure that Captain America knows what sort of ideal he represents. Even before Civil War he comes across as a very impractical individual that is out of touch with reality. The only ideal he seems to represent is 1930s and 40s America. He just can’t seem to get with the program. If you believe in the collective you have to side with government whether you like it or not. You can try and change it but every group has to conform to certain social standards which assume a government structure. If Cap decides to violate international authority what’s stopping him from doing questionable things.

#TeamIronMan 

The Difference between Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder

(photo courtesy of batman.wikia.com)

Well I recently watched Batman Begins (2005)and it still holds up despite the release of Batman vs. Superman. Batman Begins is a superior film to Batman vs. Superman because it’s just a good, well made film. It’s not even an issue of comparing the two as superhero films.  They should be compared as films. Are they good or not? Batman vs. Superman benefitted from having a comic book extravaganza because it featured, if only briefly at times, many characters in the DC comic book pantheon.  Batman Begins was done well in order to correct the comic book extravaganza that wrecked the Batman franchise in the 90s. One of the reasons Batman Begins was able to win converts is that it was a good film. By superhero standards it’s a great film. In terms of storytelling technique Batman Begins set a high standard in terms of incorporating the superhero in the real world or the world as we know it. By discussing the difference between  Batman Begins and Batman vs. Superman I will discuss the difference between Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. The primary difference is that Nolan is a very good filmmaker particularly when it comes to building his own vision for a particular story and Snyder is not. I won’t use Man of Steel here because Nolan played a significant role in crafting the story.

One of the primary differences between  Begins and BvS is the tone as well as the delivery. Firstly, Snyder botched Batman’s origin story in BvS because it was more stylistic and superficial instead of offering any real glimpses into the character of Bruce Wayne. One of the most embarrassing scenes in Snyder’s take on Batman’s origin story is when he falls through a hole in the surface into the bat cave. After he falls the bats predictably swirl around him but what comes next was more stylistic than concrete. As the bats swirl around the young Bruce Wayne he begins to rise to the surface in a most holy fashion. It is a foolish scene and so is the one where his parents get shot in such dramatic fashion. In Begins Nolan’s approach is a grim affair but it is also portrayed in a realistic way. We understand from the outset that Bruce fears bats because after his fall he was swarmed by bats in the cave. He is also tormented by the murder of his parents. Ra’s Al Ghul teaches him to embrace his fear and become one with it and so how he becomes batman makes sense in the long run.  Snyder tries to simplify all the work Nolan has done by letting us watch a young Bruce rising towards the light and so accept that he must become batman. It therefore shows that Nolan knows how to build his story and explain the fundamentals of an issue that eventually lead to the stylistic or superficial elements that come later. Snyder on the other hand seems to struggle with the fundamentals and more readily embraces the superficial elements. This would explain the numerous dream sequences in BvS which are very superficial in Snyder’s case whereas the flashbacks in Begins convincingly reflect psychological trauma.

Now it has been recently revealed that Snyder deleted a scene from BvS because it was considered too dark. He seemed to be pushing for a very grim affair in this film. Something akin to the dark world in  Sin City. Snyder fails here as well.  There is nothing wrong with a grim film once it can be balanced out by more hopeful elements. Snyder killed off superman in order to drive home his point. He exaggerated in order to convey an issue where he would have been better served to elaborate on the fundamentals. Superman’s, supposed, death did not need to lead to the creation of a justice league because that could have been done with the doomsday fight alone. The holy trinity (Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman) would have already recognized the need to stand together following the doomsday fight.  In that sense it could have been much more hopeful if Doomsday was defeated and the three heroes got together and showed some level of camaraderie even though they were battered and bruised. This is what Nolan did so well in Begins. He did not need to drive home is point by having a main character die. In The Dark Knight it does seem as if Nolan was prepared to take it to a whole new level by having James Gordon killed but he brought him back to the relief of the audience. Nolan toyed with the grim elements but he balanced it. In The Dark Knight Rachel Dawes does die and Harvey Dent becomes Two Face but Rachel Dawes is not a major character like James Gordon. Her death was designed to push Dent over the edge. In Begins Nolan is trying to explain the fundamentals that lead to the creation of Batman’s partnership with other real world individuals in the fight against crime. His major ally is James Gordon but there is also Lucious Fox and Alfred. It’s still a team and we see how all of them come together to make things happen and this partnership leads to the defeat and death of Ra’s Al Ghul. This is not the case in BvS and we don’t necessarily get a sense of how the holy trinity function as a partnership. This would have been better illustrated if Superman didn’t die. If Snyder explained the fundamentals in terms of the  three coming together for a common cause then this film would have been better and it could have simply be called The Justice League: The Dawn of Justice. There would have been no need for Superman’s, supposed, death to create a rallying cry. Nolan by seeking to build the fundamentals of the story succeeds in Begins where Snyder fails because he (Snyder) cannot explain the fundamentals. This is why Snyder has been called out for the ‘Martha’ incident because it reeks of gross superficiality.

Nolan’s expert explanation of the fundamentals means that he is able to introduce several characters without making the area seem overcrowded. Snyder on the other hand, because of his stylistic and superficial approach, makes the area seem overcrowded because he can’t distinguish who or what is important to the story. Snyder’s superficiality becomes especially rank when it comes to the numerous dream sequences and Luthor’s reference to the coming of Darkseid. Snyder thinks he’s telling a story by doing this but instead he isolates the viewer from the story. It is because of the many interludes that the BvS story seems very hollow and trite in its conception.  Goyer and Chris Terrio must also be singled out. The superman issue was weak because the story should have been about Batman vs. Superman only. It would have simplified the issue because, as many people have commented, there is no dawn of justice. BvS would have worked if it focused on how these two characters have different approaches to addressing the world’s problems. It never had to be about the two of them actually fighting. Batman should be clearly more seasoned than Superman and there would be nothing wrong for the two of them to come together to fight Luthor. Simplifying the story is the only way this film could have worked effectively but it couldn’t be simplified because that would require building the fundamentals. Snyder is incapable of building fundamentals. The two heroes didn’t need to be connected through Bruce Wayne’s tower collapsing or their mothers having the same name. Those kinds of connections are more emotional than realistic. Batman would have begun doing some serious investigations once Zod announced his arrival. He wouldn’t have to wait for his building to come crashing down. In Begins Wayne  and Gordon have a connection because Gordon consoled him immediately following his father’s death however if Gordon was corrupt then the connection would not be realistic.  Batman must still have observed or done his investigations to determine if Gordon was one of the good cops ‘one of the few’.  There is a very important scene in Begins when Gordon refuses to take a taste of corrupt dollars. A very important scene because what would be the point of their emotional connection if Gordon was corrupt.

Nolan introduces other characters that are similarly submerged because of the rampant corruption and glorification of crime in Gotham. The idealists have been smothered or extinguished.  What Nolan does well is have them come together in a way that doesn’t seem superfluous or empty. In Begins the characters are either idealists or realists. The realists are very corrupt or unwilling to provoke change whereas the idealists are given to wishful thinking. It’s Batman that galvanizes and brings them together which is a point the joker made in The Dark Knight when he addressed the mobsters. The Joker understood clearly that batman was the epicenter of the positive movement. In Snyder’s case he would have required a more fundamental epicenter to explain the creation of the justice league. He tries to have this done with the death of superman. Nick Fury and his SHIELD operatives brought the Avengers together. Where Snyder missed the boat is that there is no epicenter in BvS so all the characters seem empty. In Begins Nolan makes it clear from the outset that crime is the number one issue to be dealt with and he introduces Ra’s Al Ghul to identify a difference in crime fighting styles. Ra’s is more in line with the ‘eye for an eye’ approach and batman takes the new testament, ‘be your brother’s keeper’, approach. Batman supports rehabilitation whereas Ra’s believes there is no other way but eradicating criminals. Other characters like the Scarecrow become involved but in more subordinate roles. A character like the scarecrow is not just a typical villain but one that represents how ingrained corruption is in Gotham. He represents something. In BvS we have Luthor who doesn’t really represent anything apart from being a harbinger for Darkseid. There is no elaboration on the reasons for his hatred of superman.  Gene Hackman’s Luthor  in Superman (1978)was more sophisticated because he had plans that were foiled by Superman. His plans had nothing to do with Superman; he had to take him out for good reason. Hackman’s Luthor was just a man willing to do dastardly things to get what he wants for his own aggrandizement. This is the Luthor we all know.  He represented the forces of destruction that lay beneath the surface as the great light of the world, Superman, flew around town. Luthor certainly represented something significant in such a scenario but not in BvS. So Snyder never found a way to make his characters relevant or truly representative of something. Nolan did find that in Begins and, again, this is because he stuck to the fundamentals. This would also explain why Nolan could introduce several characters without them seeming superfluous. They represented something.  BvS acts more like extended commentary on this or that instead of actual character building within the context of the dawn of justice.

I just highlighted several elements to showcase the difference between Nolan and Snyder. The primary difference is that Nolan is a very good film maker who knows how to build the fundamentals of his story while articulating his vision and Snyder focuses primarily on the superficial and stylistic elements that mean nothing without the proper fundamentals. Everything you include into the story must be representative of something apart from its stylistic element.  Snyder does not seem to realize this but Nolan does which is why his Batman trilogy will endure while Snyder’s BvS will eventually fade.

Deadpool (2016) ****/5: the film does run out of gas but the characterization of Deadpool is pretty solid. It's a good R-rated slap in the face for the superhero films

(photo courtesy of www.npr.org)

Well I finally watched Deadpool and I thought it was a great diversion from the typical superhero fare with its very violent action and sardonic type of humour.  The R-rating is nothing new to superhero films although Deadpool is not a superhero. The Blade films were just as gory or bloody as Deadpool and yes Blade used a sword as well and he is also marvel property. The Sin City and 300 films were also very gory but there were no superheroes in those although it was based on graphic comic books. The edge that Deadpool has is the humour.  I can see why the film is so popular and yes this does look like the beginning of a beautiful franchise. The film does run out of gas towards the end but the characterization of Deadpool or Wade Wilson’s story is strong enough to carry the film.

This film is about how Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) a former special force operative, who volunteers to be a part of a special  program for very personal reasons. As he becomes the subject of various experiments Wilson becomes trapped and is nearly killed by the chief medical officer.  He does emerge from the experiments with accelerated healing powers, like Wolverine, but it comes at a cost of disfigurement. He then tracks down the man, Ajax, who experimented on him so that he can return to normal.  Yes a romantic relationship had to be in it.

Positives

The primary positive is the characterization of Deadpool. He might be very humourous but there are times when he has to get serious or pause for reflection. Some of the best parts occur before he does turn Deadpool because of the grounded atmosphere in which the various interactions take place. The R-rating also helps because there is a real world quality to it with all the profanity. Well done ryan Reynolds as you seem to have recovered from your Green Lantern night mare.

Deadpool is an anti-hero and that’s fine since we don’t expect him to be saving people. He has one mission of vengeance and that’s it. It made me wonder if this is the kind of film Heath ledger’s joker would have if he ever got a solo film.  By being an anti-hero we don’t get any grand captain america talks about saving people etc.

The sardonic humour in the film is very good. It’s clearly meant to be the antithesis to the typical superhero film with all its moral values tied to box office success.

Marvel seemed to hint at the coming of a character like Deadpool and his profanity. In The Avengers Age of Ultron there are a lot of scenes referring to the use of profane language and how inappropriate it is in a kids film. At least marvel acknowledged its own limitations hence why a film like Deadpool seems so refreshing. Let it go.

The action is pretty good. Refreshing to see some blood. It does show that there really should be more blood in superhero films but we can’t see it because we’re living in the PG-13 era.

The addition of someone like Colussus points fingers at the low production budget and it does seem like it did not get the typical superhero treatment. The production budget for Deadpool is said to be around US$58 million. Most superhero films are in the US$100 million range. Deadpool, in the real world, seriously takes on the mainstream here. Deadpool provides all the important references when he talks to the audience but the low budget is there for all of us to see particularly the small scale of the locations and the isolated bits especially Xavier’s mansion.

Negatives

Although the characterization of Deadpool is strong the story itself does run out of gas towards the end. The early parts are good but once Wade Wilson becomes Deadpool and starts slashing away it becomes a bit repetitive and his single minded mission doesn’t offer much dimensions. There is one dimension when he takes some time off to heal in the care of his black and blind sidekick. By the end however we know enough about Deadpool’s antics and it does get to be a bit of a drag. If  Deadpool’s characterization was bad then the whole film would have suffered and that is testament to the acting and the toned down, real world visual element.

Apart from the sardonic humour it doesn’t have much to  say apart from what takes place in his sordid romantic affair. It really is an anti-hero film because typical superhero films are now expected to make grand statements about humanity whereas Deadpool’s only motive is revenge. It’s a very single minded pursuit and that won’t be for everyone or those that prefer superhero films to have some major statements about heroism.

It’s still a good film. Not exactly great because it does run out of gas but the characterization of Deadpool is strong enough to carry the film.