Prime Time: The Runner (2026)

With the title giving you all you need to know, The Runner is all about a female attorney (Maia, played by Gal Gadot) who gets an unexpected call while out on her morning run. That call is from someone who claims to have kidnapped her young son (Rory Wilmot), holding him hostage while Maia is made to run from one location to the next, ultimately being ordered to kill a vital witness being kept in a secure location before a big upcoming trial.

That's all there is to it, but there's somehow even less to this film than what I've described here. It's dull, it's laughable at times (there's a sequence in which Gal Gadot is running and trying to figure out how to get around a group of chatting mothers that plays out like a parody of an action movie sequence), and there's a reveal in the third act that is both ridiculous and insulting to the audience.

Director Kevin Macdonald has been making feature films for a while now, but I would argue that he was much better when delivering fantastic documentaries. This is a star vehicle (and anyone wanting a film that focuses on Gadot in running gear should be kept happy enough), but that doesn't excuse how little effort Macdonald seems to make to cover up the weakness of Mark Gibson's screenplay. Okay, you can't fix a severed limb with a small sticking plaster, and Gibson (who doesn't have the best back catalogue when it comes to his writing) doesn't provide a strong foundation for everyone else to work on, but I was desperate for something, anything, to be done in a way that felt as if someone was trying.

Gadot is terrible in the lead role, and I assume she was asked to do the role because she could manage to run for multiple takes. It's just a shame that she is unable to run and act convincingly at the same time. That might not be so bad if she wasn't the focus of about 95% of the screentime, but she is. If you point your cameras at a vacuum for 95% of a movie then you're movie is going to feel like a vacuum. Wilmot isn't too bad for his few minutes onscreen, Damian Lewis gets paid for what I hope was a minimal amount of work, and one or two others appear in roles that are pivotal to the plot, but actually as unmemorable as almost everyone else in the movie.

I don't really know how this could have been improved enough to make it worth your time. A different lead? That might have helped. Some kind of self-aware tone that would have allowed the director to make use of action movie tropes while finding a device to ensure that the main character was unable to stop running (drop under 5mph and a bomb goes off or something, I am sure that concept has worked well elsewhere). Or maybe it couldn't be salvaged. Maybe this is a movie that should have been binned after the first draft. Because most viewers will find their patience wearing thinner than the soles on Gadot's running shoes.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Snow White (2025)

There's something really annoying about watching a movie that has had the critical conversation around it hijacked by people frothing at the mouth while they misuse the word "woke" and then finding out that, sadly, it really is awful. Not for the reasons that the raving racists and misogynists would claim, but it's still very hard to defend.

Snow White isn't just bad. It's consistently awful in a way that feels designed that way. From the casting of Gal Gadot as the Evil Queen to the horrible CGI/motion-captured dwarfs, it's a live-action remake that serves no purpose, other than to drive viewers back to enjoy the animated classic once again. 

Everyone knows the story. I am not going to repeat it here. Rachel Zegler is Snow White, and she's the best thing in this. I'm not going to name those voicing the dwarf roles. The only other cast member to mention is Andrew Burnap, playing Jonathan (a replacement for the bland prince in the original movie).

Written by Erin Cressida Wilson, who has a number of much better movies to her credit that you should check out ahead of this one, and directed by Marc Webb, who also has a number of better movies you could choose ahead of this (hell, if Neil Breen worked on this then I would even be recommending a number of his past features), this is such a mishandling of the classic tale that it's only saved from being the worst of the worst by Zegler. There's no charm to it, no improvement offered by the move from animation to live-action, and it stands as the best argument yet against Disney rushing to remake so many of their classic works.

Zegler is a great talent, as she has also shown in a number of other recent projects. She also absolutely looks the part, and kudos to the make up and costuming department for their work on both Zegler and Gadot here, with them being allowed to impressively recreate some iconic looks. Someone else really needed to be cast as the Evil Queen though. Gadot isn't just bad, she's mistakenly given a musical number that also proves how ill-suited she is to anything that requires a bit of singing. I would rather listen to her joining other celebrities on another horrible and patronising rendition of "Imagine". As for Burnap, he's simply fine, if forgettable. I don't want to spend any time critiquing the dwarf characters, mainly because I am hoping to wipe them from my memory as quickly as possible.

It brings me no joy to be so scathing here. The backlash against this meant that I was rooting for it, particularly when that backlash was often most passionately supported by those who were just looking to push their own agendas, but if it quacks like a duck and tries, but fails, to walk like a duck then it is, in fact, a lame duck.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Death On The Nile (2022)

It took me long enough to get around to this, the second Poirot adventure starring, and directed by, Kenneth Branagh, and I was wondering if I should delay it any long as the earliest scenes played out (a sequence showing Poirot in wartime action that feels far too much like a superhero origin prologue). Things did not bode well. Thankfully, the rest of the film is much better, helped by a sprawling cast that has enough welcome performers to make up for those you may be less inclined to want on your screen.

Everything is basically summed up by the title. Poirot is invited to join the celebrations of a pair of newlyweds (Armie Hammer and Gal Gadot), as well as an assemblage of friends and acquaintances. There's trouble in the air though. An angry ex (Emma Mackey), who may be out for deadly revenge.

With Michael Green back for the job of adapting Agatha Christie's work into movie form, and Branagh very comfortable as the lead, there's very little here that should deter those who enjoyed Murder On The Orient Express. I would say that this is a more showy and beautiful film, helped in no small part by the setting, and Branagh has never been someone who could be accused of lacking confidence or the ability to add multiple cinematic flourishes to very traditional material.

Hammer is fine in his role, Gadot feels very much out of her depth, and Mackey is good fun, but the best moments come from many of the supporting players. Annette Bening and (returning) Tom Bateman are both on great form, a mother and son who both view Poirot in quite different ways. It's always nice to see Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders working alongside one another onscreen again. Rose Leslie does okay with a fairly anaemic role, and Russell Brand appears just often enough to make his inclusion feel unfortunate, but both Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo light up the screen with their presence. Branagh remains a lot of fun as Poirot, once the film moves beyond that unwanted opening sequence, and he's allowed, as usual, to showboat and relish his dialogue in the grand finale.

It doesn’t seem right to mention plotting in an adaptation of Agatha Christie, but fans should be pleased that this feels nicely in line with what you would expect from her. I haven’t read the source material (note to self, get back to exploring more Agatha Christie tales), but Christie is such a known institution that it would be very easy to tell when something felt . . . off.

Not great, not exactly cinematic throughout (despite Branagh trying his best), but comforting and enjoyable nonetheless. I may even get around to the next film very shortly, considering that has the bonus of Michelle Yeoh in one of the main roles. Or maybe I will take as long to get around to it as I took to get around to this one. After all, they don’t exactly set my little grey cells on fire with excitement.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: Heart Of Stone (2023)

I am often accused of being too kind in my movie ratings and reviews, and that is absolutely fine with me. I go into EVERY movie with optimism, and I always remember that the final result in front of my eyes is the result of people working together to get a clear vision onscreen. Sometimes it is only a handful of people, sweating and struggling to pool resources, and sometimes it's a huge number of people who can get their hands on whatever they need for their glossy blockbuster. Heart Of Stone falls into the latter camp, and it's one of those films that allows me to be unkind. Because it is, undoubtedly, one of the most soulless and unexciting pieces of garbage that I've seen in a long time. 

Gal Gadot stars as Rachel Stone, a woman working as part of a MI6 team. She's a technician, supposed to be able to stay safe and observant while others do the action stuff, but they don't realise that Stone is actually working for a global peacekeeping agency known as The Charter. The Charter has the advantage of being able to feed agents information from a powerful AI device they call The Heart (see? see where the title comes from?), a super-computer that can hack into any digital device and offer fluctuating predictions on the potential success of every possibility for a field agent on a mission. Someone wants to get to The Heart though, and that could allow them to become a very powerful super-villain. There's treachery, changes of alliance, and horribly inept set-pieces all thrown together on the way to a finale that feels as smug as it does predictable.

It has become all too easy lately for people to dismiss a film by saying "it feels as if it was written by A.I.", but that certainly feels like it was a factor here. A Netflix film, and we know that they often design their movies around certain patterns and factor they have seen in their viewing data, the humans actually responsible for this screenplay are Greg Rucka and Allison Schroeder. While I wasn't surprised to see that Rucka was used to the Netflix style, having also had a hand in The Old Guard (a film I have yet to muster the enthusiasm to watch), I was very surprised to see Schroeder attached to this, considering her work in recent years on both Hidden Figures and Christopher Robin, as well as being an extra helping hand on the screenplay for Frozen 2. It's equally surprising to see Tom Harper sitting in the director's chair for this. I can only imagine that he either wanted a different kind of challenge, wanted a big payday, or both, considering his past couple of movies were the very different, and apparently much better, The Aeronauts and Wild Rose. What isn't surprising is that neither the writers nor director put any kind of personal stamp on this. Heart Of Stone is a star vehicle. It just doesn't have a good enough star in the lead role.

I like Gal Gadot. I do. She's pretty great in the role of Wonder Woman, even if the films are very often not the best vehicles for the character, and I have enjoyed her in most of her other movie roles. Superhero movies aside though, she's never really been given a lead role, and Heart Of Stone clearly shows why this is the case. She doesn't shine as she should, unable to give the role the mix of humour and charisma needed. It doesn't help that she's surrounded by a cast of equally dull performers, whether that's caused by their own acting or the script is something I'm still debating internally. Jamie Dornan and Alia Bhatt are the wost offenders, but even someone as good as Sophie Okonedo seems to be delivering her lines as if she'd rather be doing anything else instead. Both Jing Kusi and Paul Ready are a bit more enjoyable, and I was most disappointed when their limited screentime came to an end. The other cast member worth mentioning is Matthias Schwieghöfer, who proves himself a highlight once again, having won people over with his turn in Army Of The Dead, leading to his lead role in the spin-off, Army Of Thieves. He works well in his role here, despite having to deliver exposition while portraying "intel guy monitoring and moving around computer data depicted as an augmented reality display surrounding him".

There was one action set-piece I quite enjoyed here, a chase involving cars, bikes, and a chunky van, but I even watched that while wondering whether or not I preferred a similar sequence in the recent action comedy Murder Mystery 2. As for the rest of the film, it moves from one bit of over-edited greenscreen nonsense to the next, keeping you stuck alongside a lead character you don't care about as things wind towards a tiresome conclusion that lets the film end EXACTLY how you think it is going to end. This is the kind of hollow and artless work that ends up on Netflix because it isn't good enough to end up anywhere else. It certainly isn't good enough to end up on your viewing schedule. Treat yourself to something better. It won't be hard.

And, yes, I know many will still think my final rating here is too kind.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Fast & Furious (2009)

New Model. Original Parts. That was the way Fast & Furious was advertised, heavily pushing the fact that Vin Diesel was back, as were Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster. It's apparently what fans of the series wanted. And it's hard to argue with the decision, considering the enduring success of the series across two decades.

Let me try to keep things very simple. After an intro that shows Dominic Toretto (Diesel) and co. pulling off a dangerous heist, Dom knows that he's bringing down too much heat on those close to him. So he decides that it's time to leave. Then Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is killed. It may have something to do with a major criminal named Campos, which leads to Dom crossing paths once again with Brian (Paul Walker), the famously criminal-friendly cop who is somehow back in the bosom of the FBI workplace. The way to get to Campos is to, obviously, show off your driving skills, and that means Dom and Brian race against one another, and others, to get closer to their target.

You know what, I liked this a little more this time around than I did when I first saw it. I think it has an enjoyable simplicity to it, even as it starts to put the pieces in place for what would define the shape of the series for the next few films. It's more overtly showing Vin Diesel as the smartest and toughest and most desirable male in any situation, which is also irritating, but even that is nowhere as bothersome as it is in other Diesel-fulled cinematic engines.

With director Justin Lin and writer Chris Morgan once again along for the ride, Fast & Furious is a film that shows everyone being very comfortable with the format, with delivering what people expect, and with the chemistry between the leads (the frisson between Dom and Brian is something we haven't experienced this strongly since Tom Hanks started side-eyeing Wilson the volleyball).

I'm not the biggest fan of either Diesel or Walker, but they're both pretty perfect in their main roles here. Diesel gets to do all of his usual stuff, but Walker has a bit more variety and fun, especially in his running "war" with one main colleague (played by the great Shea Wigham). Rodriguez gets taken offscreen very early on, but at least she doesn't have to spend the rest of the film fawning over Diesel, with those moments now taken by Gal Gadot. Brewster, on the other hand, has to split her time between looking lovingly at her brother and looking ready to forgive and fall back in love with the cop who lied to her before. John Ortiz and Laz Alonso are both good fun, playing a couple of main villains, and fans of the third film will be pleased to see a small role for Sung Kang.

It's a different level of ridiculousness than the films that would come along after it, but this is all still quite ridiculous. Fortunately, it's done with an emphasis on sheer entertainment and thrills, with a decent smattering of lively car races and some bruising fights. The more of these films I rewatch, the easier it is to see why the series has developed into the massive success it is.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Considering how many people still view Wonder Woman as the best of the initial wave of DC cinematic universe, it's no surprise that expectations were high for this sequel, set in the 1980s (as you may have gathered from the title). It's equally unsurprising that many have been disappointed by it, although I'm not sure whether the rescheduling of the release helped or hindered it with audiences.

Gadot returns to the main role, Diana Prince, and this time she's helping to defeat baddies in the 1980s. She dives in, rounds them up, and disappears again. Things are about to get quite strange, however, when someone discovers an artefact that can make your wishes come true. At a price. The quiet and clumsy Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) wants to be more like Diana, not realising exactly what she's wishing for, and Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) wants, well, everything. And he seems to know exactly what it will entail. Does Diana have anything she would wish for? Well, the return of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), taking over the body of another man, would strongly suggest that she does. Will she be able to defeat Lord, knowing that it may lead to her having to rescind her wish?

Patty Jenkins is back in the director's chair, and she's once again more than up to the task. Wonder Woman 1984 isn't a film that suffers from poor direction. It suffers from the writing though, which has Jenkins working alongside Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham. From a pointlessly lengthy opening sequence to a serious dearth of action set-pieces, Wonder Woman 1984 is a pale imitation of its predecessor. It's also not helped by the fact that the time period isn't used to just cut loose and have some more fun. There aren't even a number of easy needle-drops throughout the soundtrack. And let's not dwell on the way in which Diana and Steve get to have some more time together, a problematic scenario that isn't ever glossed over enough to make it seem any more palatable.

Lord is a weak "villain", and Minerva at times feels exactly like Catwoman in Batman Returns, which is even more of a shame considering how good Wiig does in the role, but there IS one big plus. The main thrust of the plot, and the moral lesson at the heart of things, is a timely one. Some people may view it as being a bit too nice and safe, without any feeling of major stakes being played for, but it's a nice antidote to the motives behind so many other comic book movie villains in recent years.

Gadot is still perfect in the lead role, and Pine works hard to make his shoehorned inclusion feel worthwhile. Pascal has to spend a lot of time being stressed and sweaty, which he does well enough. The highlight is Wiig though, giving a performance that present an impressive transformation of her character. I hope she gets to do something similar soon, but preferably in a film more worthy of her talent.

Despite the major script problems, I still enjoyed this. It has a lot of heart, and a sweet optimism that feels in line with the era it is set in. But it also has a multitude of problems that could have been easily solved by another couple of drafts of the script. And the confidence to go with the brash and bright stylistic choices used in the trailer and advertising campaign. I guess we'll just need to see if things are changed up enough for the inevitable third instalment.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Ani-MAY-tion: Ralph Breaks The Internet (2018)

It has been a number of years since I saw, and enjoyed, Wreck-It Ralph, the tale of a videogame baddie (Ralph, played by John C. Reilly) who tried to give himself a different role in life while befriending the a glitching racer girl named Vanellope (Sarah Silverman).

This gets going quickly enough, and the main theme this time is friendship, and how to always be there as a friend by knowing when to step back. There are other things in the mix, but that is the main element, and it's underscored by the grand finale.

Story-wise, the Sugar Rush arcade game ends up breaking a steering wheel. As it is an old machine, the arcade owner isn't sure if it will be fixed or just removed from the arcade, which would leave Vanellope without a home. Luckily, she and Ralph have just learned about the internet, which has just been installed. So they head off to ebay, bid far too much for a replacement steering wheel, and then have to figure out how to earn enough money to pay for it before their allotted time runs out. This involves a bit of treasure hunting for special game treats and, eventually, Ralph trying to become a viral hit.

The voice cast, both the returning performers and the newcomers, are all doing great work here (everyone fitting their characters as well as they did the first time around). Reilly and Silverman make a very cute central pairing, Gal Gadot and Taraji P. Henson are two female characters who are very powerful in differing ways, and there are great little turns from Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, and Bill Hader.

Directors Phil Johnston and Rich Moore (both involved with the first movie, which was directed solely by Moore) do a great job throughout. They're helped hugely by the animation team, and the animation is gorgeous and fun throughout (there are SO many details to look out for on rewatched), and the script, co-written by Johnston and Pamela Ribon, with the help of many others, is smart and very funny, while also largely keeping things cute and aimed very much at the child audience.

The fact that Disney now own almost everything in the world means that you also get a world in which Disney princesses feature alongside Star Wars characters, as well as Pixar stars, and familiar Marvel faces (well, at least one). And you once again get a fun mix of well-known videogame characters interacting with one another.

Visually lush, emotionally resonant (especially for children who make friends so easily but may then have to adjust to the normal status quo of friendships ebbing and flowing), and featuring a finale with one of the best, funniest, rescue sequences I have seen in the past couple of decades, Ralph Breaks The Internet is even slightly better than the original film, which I enjoyed a lot. Highly recommended.

9/10

You can buy the disc here.
Americans can get it here.

Justice League (2017)

Messy is the word to use with most of the major DC movies we have seen in the last few years. Ever since Man Of Steel seemed to sorely misjudge the very essence of Superman, fans have been worried about those in charge making too many mis-steps, which has since been confirmed by, well, numerous mis-steps. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice actually didn't seem too bad the last time I watched it, redeemed by some impressive action scenes and fun individual moments, Suicide Squad was actually FUN, which I wasn't expecting, albeit very messy fun (has any blockbuster film used clips of music so erratically?), and Wonder Woman almost made up for everything else, despite a climactic battle that felt a bit disappointing.

And now we finally have Justice League, the film that you know DC have been wanting to give fans from the very beginning. The film responsible for the messy, rushed approach to their release timetable. And, whaddyaknow, it's messy. But it's almost entertaining enough to make it an enjoyable mess.

The silly plot sees a big baddie named Steppenwolf (impressive CGI voiced by Ciaran Hinds) coming back to Earth to collect a few cubes that will cause devastation and death if linked together for long enough. It's up to Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) to put together a team. He knows that he can get help from Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), but also wants to recruit Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher). But will they be enough?

Directed by Zack Snyder (for the most part), Justice League continues in the dark visual style that was set up back in Man Of Steel. Thankfully, that style doesn't mean that the script, by Joss Whedon and Chris Terrio, is too sombre and humourless. A lot of the humour comes from the exuberance and inexperience of The Flash, but there are also some fun exchanges between Aquaman and the other team members.

Starting, suitably enough, with a flashback scene that shows Superman (Henry Cavill) talking to some kids who are filming him on a mobile phone, it's worth mentioning that the DC movies have already tried to give their superhero movies more weight than their Marvel counterparts. Ever since that major moment at the end of Man Of Steel, deaths mean something here, they impact on the characters (which didn't happen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe until the pieces needed to be put in place for Captain America: Civil War).

The performances are all decent enough, with Miller, Fisher, and Momoa feeling very comfortable in their roles and Affleck and Gadot suitable leaders, and everyone from the past few movies seems to get a moment or two: Diane Lane, Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons, Connie Nielsen, J. K. Simmons, and a few others.

The biggest problem with Justice League is how forced it all feels. The plotting often feels as if it was reverse engineered, with everyone involved knowing what the final scenes needed to be but not really knowing how to get there. That may not sound like a major issue, but it is. It allows the whole film to feel as if certain scenes are either completely extraneous or just put together in a slapdash manner to get elements in place.

To sum up then, Justice League does just enough to be a fun time at the cinema. And it's pretty messy.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016)

It's been hard to avoid the hype machine for Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (forthwith known as BvS for the purposes of this review). Ever since initial announcements were made, to either applause or sneers, or both, there has been an almost steady, grinding inevitability to viewing this superhero battle. A sense that Warner Bros. have placed us all on a conveyor belt that they alone have been operating, with the end drop either leading to a fiery hell or cool oasis, depending on your general view of the DC properties and their plan to rival Marvel on the big screen. And if you don't LOVE this one, well that is okay, because don't forget that Suicide Squad will be along soon enough, as well as a Wonder Woman movie (which, based on the impression made by the character in this movie, could be a very good thing indeed - but that will come later).

This is a movie that apparently garnered such a positive reception at the screening for certain studio execs that new Batman Ben Affleck was immediately signed on for more movies and everyone started to simply look at their about-to-soar stock shares whenever their partners were unable to bring them to orgasm. That last bit is untrue. Of course. But I have to state the untrueness of it . . . . . . . just in case.

And then it was released. Audiences were good. Ticket sales seemed in line with the predictions. And critics unleashed a large selection of reviews that seemed to come perilously close to calling this a big, fat turkey. Articles started to appear in support of the movie. Many articles started to appear that tried picking apart just what it got wrong. And a perceived divide between critics and audiences seemed to widen. But was that really the case? It's far too early to decide whether or not this film will end up proving to be a bit of a financial disappointment, compared simply to what Warner Bros. are obviously expecting from it, but I've heard from very few people who unequivocally loved it. Do we regular cinema-goers invest that little bit more just because we've already invested our money in a ticket? I actually suspect that we do. Pair that up with the growing feeling that many critics have in the internet age, that they're becoming less and less necessary in a world in which quotes can be culled from blogs (I know, I know, I guess I may well be part of the problem) and Twitter alike, and you can start to appreciate why it is probably easier for critics to either lambast a film or heap great praise upon it. They're seeing it for free, and we live in a world that demands more and more hyperbole to grab attention amidst the vast material adrift in cyberspace.

Anyway, let's get to the film itself.

The title really tells you everything you need to know. Henry Cavill is back in the role of Superman, Amy Adams also returns as Lois Lane, and Ben Affleck is a certain Gotham resident. During the events that took place at the climax of Man Of Steel, Bruce Wayne saw many innocent bystanders die. He decides that Superman is a powerful threat. And many others start to agree with him, leading to debates about power and morality. Oh, and Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) plans to pit the two heroes against one another. And Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is on the scene. And a few other familiar characters, giving fleeting cameos. Which just about covers everything, apart from the inclusion of one more major element, featured in the trailers. Doomsday.

I'd better start by clarifying that I didn't love Man Of Steel (please see the review hyperlinked above). As much as I often like the work of Zack Snyder - and, believe me, I am one of the few who enjoyed Sucker Punch - I think that he fundamentally misunderstood just what makes Superman so super. Henry Cavill was superb in the main role, and he continues to be superb this time around. But there was certainly a lot of room for improvement.

The good news is that BvS DOES hold up as a move in the right direction. There are some interesting themes and ideas in the mix, with one or two moments of dialogue nicely summing up the different views of the main characters. Visually, it's a slightly brighter film than Man Of Steel, certainly when it comes to Superman himself and the scenes that show Metropolis not in any immediate danger. And most of the newcomers do themselves proud. Ben Affleck is fine as Bruce Wayne/Batman but I'd still put him just below both Keaton and Bale. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful Alfred. Gal Gadot doesn't get too much to do, but she does well enough with what she's given.

The action scenes are also pretty well done, with the main event being the unsurprising highlight of the film. It's a shame that the climax goes down the overblown, overly-CGI route (although it's still not as ineffective and ultimately dull as the videogame that made up the grand finale of Avengers: Age Of Ultron). And it's all grounded quite nicely, which is pleasantly unexpected, considering the characters being portrayed.

Now let me get to the bad stuff.

Snyder seems to continue misunderstanding the main character, with the additional damage caused by him also now misunderstanding Batman. Perhaps it's best to blame the writers (Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) but Snyder has always seemed to be a director able to put his vision directly on to the screen, and this time around his vision jars when set against the long history of these characters in comic book form. It's easier to forgive this time, however, as viewers should be able to accept a little bit of "fudging of the details" to line things up for the battle and the cinematic growth of this universe. There's certainly nothing here as bad as the major mis-step that many people criticised in Man Of Steel, and the fact that it uses the end of that movie as a developmental stepping stone almost makes me re-evaluate my opinion of it. Almost.

The bigger problem comes from some of the casting. I like Jesse Eisenberg. I've often REALLY liked him onscreen. And I think he's the absolutely worst Lex Luthor in the history of onscreen Lex Luthors. There's no way around it. His motives are murky, at best. His mannerisms are ridiculously over-emphatic. And a weak villain unbalances any standard "good vs evil" tale. Ezra Miller may only be seen for less than a minute, but that's some casting that I can't get behind (see the movie to see who he is portraying). And then you have Kevin Costner and Diane Lane. They're not bad here, but their presence feels unnecessary, as if they've been shoehorned in just to keep the cast prestigious enough. Which isn't necessary when you have a couple of scenes featuring Holly Hunter reminding people how great Holly Hunter can be.

Last, but by no means least, we have the editing. Despite the runtime, the pacing isn't really a problem here, but there are some unnecessary sequences that I couldn't help thinking would have been better left on the cutting-room floor. One dream sequence too many is mildly irritating, but using one dream as a potential prophecy/warning is downright lazy.

Despite the flaws here, I decided to be generous to BvS. It actually does everything that it sets out to do. Comparing it to other movies isn't always going to leave it in the best light, but that isn't always going to be fair either (particularly when comparing it to any of the now-well-established Marvel outings). This is an impressive blockbuster. It's got some great imagery, with a sequence set during a Day Of The Dead celebration standing out as a personal favourite, it's got one or two ingredients too many being stirred into a big pot, and it's got a handful of small delights in pretty much every sequence. Considering what Snyder was tasked with, it's hard to think of a final product ticking as many boxes as this one does.

And it's got plenty of people excited for the upcoming Wonder Woman movie. Which can't be a bad thing.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share