Review: Man Of Steel ★★★★

Man Of Steel is a true depiction of the direction that the DC Universe is taking with Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer at its helm. This duo was responsible for the epic Dark Knight trilogy and offered their respective talents to Zack Snyder as he attempted to banish the curse that seems to linger around the Superman franchise.

The Superman jinx has caused problems for even the most established of directors. Bryan Singer's attempt, Superman Returns, was the most recent at creating a decent film about the Last Son of Krypton but was a massive flop in spite of its cast and hefty budget. Many feared that Snyder, with his less than entirely dependable record, would be unable to shake the curse. However, Man of Steel is a surprisingly good film and, whilst flawed, sets up what has the potential to be an exciting franchise. 

As with Batman Begins, Goyer seemed keen to dedicate the first in this fresh superhero series to Kal-El's origin; making Man of Steel a prologue to the established story of Clark Kent. Hence, Kal-El's story from birth to adulthood (as he develops into the superhero marauding as Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter) is explained to us at length and in great detail. 

Very little was spared by the production team when creating the crumbling Krypton, and the opening scenes depicting General Zod's uprising against the Krytponian Council demonstrate the monumental scale of the budget. The risk behind allocating such a large budget to a franchise known to be difficult is a huge demonstration of faith by the production companies in Snyder, but also in Goyer and Nolan. The faith pays off completely and Snyder was able to create a breathtaking Krypton. 

A large portion of the film is taken up by flashbacks to Kal-El's childhood on Earth and the events that defined him. Bullies, life lessons from his father (Kevin Costner) and near-death experiences throughout his formative years lead to a young man who doesn't understand his differences to the human race, nor his place on Earth. Henry Cavill won't get a lot to play with in terms of meaty acting with Superman; he is an invincible alien who isn't flawed in the way that Bruce Wayne is. However, Kal-El's desperation as he travels the world in search for answers is well depicted by Cavill. He also does well to get his teeth into the emotional tussle between "Supes'" passion for the human race and his obvious desire to preserve his own kind. There is a vulnerability to the character that Cavill manages to tap into thanks to Goyer's writing. 

Man of Steel boasts an excellent cast, who all live up to their reputation. Michael Shannon is superb as General Zod, in keeping with the frightening intensity of previous DC villains under the Nolan and Goyer reign. Amy Adams is an excellent Lois Lane, whose only downfall is the lack of tongue-in-cheek comments we expect from the quick-wit of Lane's character. This humourlessness is one of the film's two greatest flaws. Whilst it is a theme characteristic of the new DC world, Superman is a franchise that arguably needs a touch of humour due to the ridiculousness of its premise. Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe, playing the two fathers (Jonathan Kent and Jor-El), are the biggest culprits as they remain unflinching in their solemn severity, delivering life lessons to Kal-El. Whereas in the Dark Knight trilogy, we can rely on Christian Bale and Michael Caine to deliver some sharp one-liners, Man of Steel offers very little in this department.

There are some scenes worthy of a smirk though, if you look closely enough. Kal-El in full Superman dress being marched down a corridor with handcuffs on was particularly ironic. Cavill's dry delivery of, "If it makes them feel more secure..." and the preceding arrest scenes, actually raise some interesting points about the nature of humanity when faced with something we do not understand. This fear of the unknown is an underlying theme to the film and Goyer sheds a harsh light on humanity, asking us to take a look at ourselves and the manner in which we react to the different among us.

One of the challenges with the Superman franchise is the titular character's invincibility. It is a difficult thing to make a fight between Superman and his foe interesting when you cannot see the former falling short. Snyder's answer to this problem seems to be pitting Kal-El against his own, equally powerful, race and causing an inordinate amount of damage to Metropolis in the process. It was evident for all to see where the majority of the budget had gone. The length, and seeming endlessness, of these excessively destructive battle sequences were frustrating and contributed massively to the duration of the film itself. The audience watch as two superhumans crash through buildings, and later satellites, with complete disregard (somewhat ironic in Superman's case, considering a later scene demonstrating his unencumbered love for humanity). Interestingly, Watson Technical Consulting recently carried out simulations of the battle over Metropolis to determine the consequential costs of such a colossal war. They determined that, with economic impact, Metropolis would need $2 trillion to regain their former mighty status (see picture attached for further figures - credit to Buzzfeed.com). Avengers and Chitauri, take note: this is how you destroy a city. 

Since Nolan's Batman, the DC universe has become a lot darker than its Marvel cousins and Man of Steel is no exception to this. Whilst it could have been far more refined in its explosiveness, for it does feel very long, Snyder had the incredibly difficult task of interesting the masses with 'Superman vs. Zod' so can almost be forgiven. In short, Man of Steel is a good film which has kickstarted a potentially great franchise; something I never thought I'd say about a Superman film. 

Review: The Purge ★★

The Purge is James DeMonaco's attempt at showing us what could lay in wait for the Western world with our often questionable moral compass. He tries to couple the classic thriller banality with an underlying political comment, and fails on both counts. 

The film opens on James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) returning to his large house, in its pristine and gated neighbourhood, on the eve of the annual purge. The annual purge was developed and passed by the mysterious New Founding Fathers, granting US citizens a 12-hour period where all emergency services are suspended and all crime is 'legal'. It was created in an attempt to reduce US crime and it has succeeded; the public seem to appreciate the opportunity to "purge their souls". James Sandin is one of the leading security system salesmen, exploiting the purge to create a small fortune (a fact much despised by his neighbours).

The Sandin family are, in typical slasher fashion, dysfunctional. James' wife, Mary, is played by Lena Headey and she puts in a characteristically strong performance. There are two kids, Zoey and Charlie, both playing roles we have seen many times before. Charlie (Max Burkholder) is a socially-awkward loner and Zoey (Adelaide Kane) is a rebellious teenage girl, typified by her desire to secretly date someone her father doesn't approve of. 

The first half of the film is disappointing as DeMonaco makes the ill-founded decision to loiter around the political and ethical issues that come with the purge. Regrettably, the script is nowhere near good enough to make this first half engaging. The awkward dialogue is at its worst as the family, and the audience with them, suffer through dinner together. Hawke and Headey are both strong actors but even they cannot rescue the dialogue here. 

The poor build-up is not helped by the noticeable influence of Michael Bay. Having seen his producing credit crop up at the film's opening, one can make the safe prediction of seeing either an explosion or a girl in a bawdy outfit. Lo and behold, under 10 minutes in, we have Zoey in a risqué school uniform, dry-humping her boyfriend. At least Bay is nothing if not consistent with his lecherous depravity.

The film really gets going when Charlie decides, rather naïvely, to disarm the security system and grant Edwin Hodge's character, sanctuary. Unfortunately, he was a 'purge target' for some sinister socialites who arrive at the Sandin's house asking for their man back, on the proviso that if he is returned then the family will remain unharmed. They explain that they do not want to harm a family cut from the same cloth as they. Upon their eventual entry to the house through Sandin's own questionable security system, The Purge becomes a classic home invasion thriller, complete with clichés. The film moves clumsily towards its unfortunately predictable climax, throwing in a rare jump on occasion. However, DeMonaco manages to sustain a certain level of tension throughout the invasion half of the film, which is the film's saviour. 

James DeMonaco has tried and failed to make a film that is both frightening and thought-provoking. The attempted political comment is not intelligent enough to warrant thinking about and the scares are predictable. However, it offers enough tension to make it a passable 85 minutes of slasher cinema.

Review: The Hangover Part 3 ★★

The Hangover franchise finally comes to a close with a disappointing whimper in Part III. Following the fantastic success of the first and the even more impressive success, though undeserved, of the second; Todd Phillips brought the "Wolfpack" back for a final outing. 

The "Wolfpack" of Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Doug (Justin Bartha) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are brought back together by the death of Alan's Dad. They are soon holding an intervention for Alan, who has been off his medication for a number of months, and planning to drive him down to a rehabilitation centre. En route, they are abducted by Marshall, played by John Goodman; a mafia man with a vendetta against Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong). He wants our 'heroes' (I use the term loosely) to locate Chow and bring him in. He also takes Doug hostage until they do find him, signalling the end of Justin Bartha's involvement in the crux of the story. Naturally, the adventure of finding Chow is far from simple; car chases, mafia hits and heists that all end with the gang back in Las Vegas. In fact, the film's more notable elements were the occasional nods back to the escapades of the first film. It seems Phillips wished to bypass the second film which, despite its incredible box office success, was a misogynistic, racist atrocity. 

However, whilst the adventure sounds like it should be an entertaining and humorous thrill ride, it is actually a huge disappointment. It feels like Todd Phillips made the ill-advised decision to pursue a darker route, focused more on action than the light comedic bearings that were so successful in the original Hangover movie. The action storyline is far too linear and basic to make it stand out as an action film but the jokes are far from funny enough to pass it off as a successful comedy. It's a movie that feels subdued.

Also subdued are the characters that have been so loud and brash in the previous films. The most obvious is Chow whose exceptionally flamboyant arrogance is certainly toned down, which tones down the laughs and leaves the weak plot far more open to scrutiny. Perhaps the muted nature of Part III comes as a result of the fallout after Part II? 

It isn't just Chow that was neutered though as Phil and Stu, previously so sharp and unafraid, are left with horribly limp jokes. The script is so hollow for the pair that more than half of it seems to consist of swearing rather than actual constructive dialogue that moves the story along. However, Galifianakis is still the quirky, possibly deranged, Alan; a sociopath that we have grown to love. It is his character that provides us with the only laughs of the film, of which there are enough to only count on one hand. It is one of the cameo performances from Melissa McCarthy that actually brings some quality comedy to the 100 minutes and she is hardly used, which is a crying shame. 

The Hangover Part III is better than its immediate prequel. However, it is a far cry from the groundbreaking original. It wasn't funny enough to call itself a true comedy but Phillips does not, at least in this outing, have the nous to pull of a clever action movie either. It is an ironically sober affair that lacks the comic bite of The Hangover but, thankfully, lacks the darkly racist jokes of Part II.