Category: REVIEWS

By Lewis Mainwaring

*Spoilers*

Fans of Alan Moore and Brian Bolland‘s 1988 definitive one-shot graphic novel – Batman: The Killing Joke, have been waiting a very long time to see a full-length adaptation.

Batman: The Killing Joke is a 2016 American animated superhero film produced by Warner Bros: Animation and distributed by Warner Bros: Pictures. The film is the twenty-sixth film in the DC Universe Animated Original Movies series.

Both the original  graphic novel and this film is set in the fictional U.S. city of Gotham, Batman: The Killing Joke provides an origin story for the supervillain the Joker, loosely adapted from the 1951 story arc “The Man Behind the Red Hood!”.

Taking place over two timelines, The Killing Joke depicts the Joker attempting to drive Jim Gordon insane and Batman’s desperate attempt to stop him.

The film is directed by Sam Liu, written by Brian Azzarello and stars the voices of Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Tara Strong and Ray Wise.

In January 2016, Bruce Timm (producer) revealed that the team had to “add a lot more story” for the film due to the source novel not being long enough to make a feature-length film.

This “added story” came in the form of the first 30 minutes or so that sees Batgirl on patrol and trying to stop robber and crime family member Paris Franz (Maury Sterling). During this cat and mouse game between Batgirl and Paris – Batman becomes even more concerned about her safety and takes her off the case.

Outraged, Batgirl starts attacking Batman both verbally and physically. She eventually subdues him, shares a kiss with him, and they have sex !!!!!!!!!!

Fast forward a few awkward minutes that sees Batgirl transform from heroin to stroppy teenager mooning over the Bat – she retires from crime-fighting – but not before she has some scenes bitching about her ‘mystery man’ with her gay friend and fellow library worker (who is a walking talking stereotype !!!). All that was missing from these scenes was Barbara heading out for a morning after pill !

At this point of the film I was ready to turn off the TV and give up !!!! – Moving on to the better part of the film – the ACTUAL Killing Joke. Which is set one week after Batgirl hangs up her cape (and pulls up her Bat-knickers – sorry had to write that !!!!).

This part of the film is very much a shot for shot remake of the graphic novel but with a feel of the 90’s animated series – which is of-course helped by so many of the voices coming straight from the show.

Created by Moore in 1988 as his own take on Joker’s source and psychology, the story became famous for its origin of the Joker as a tragic character; a family man and failed comedian who suffered “one bad day” that finally drove him insane. Moore stated that he attempted to show the similarities between the characters of Batman and the Joker.

The story’s effects on the mainstream Batman continuity also included the shooting and paralysis of Barbara Gordon (a.k.a.Batgirl), an event that laid the groundwork for her to develop the identity of Oracle. This development of her Oracle persona is shown in a mid-credits scene.

The films adaptation of the source material is excellent – however, the degrading of Batgirls character in the first 30 minutes makes it hard to become immersed in the dark, crazy antics of the Joker (even with Mark Hamill’s amazing performance).

The scene in the hospital where Batman ‘comforts’ Barbara just seems icky ! Is Batman going after the Joker due to a sense of morality or is he super pissed that the Joker shot up his fuck buddy !!!! – By this point you can tell I’m not letting this go !!!!

I personally think the expectation for The Killing Joke was ridiculously high and whatever was released would of not pleased everyone.

The use of Batgirl’s prologue could of been used to humanise and explore the complex character of Barbara Gordon; daughter of Commissioner who turns into caped-crimefighter.

Instead we had 30 minutes of sexist remarks, close ups of her tits and ass as Barbara goes jogging, sex on a roof, ‘funny’ period jokes and gossip with her offensively stereotypical gay friend Reese.

As a member of the LGBT community and as a 90’s child (where Batman: The Animated Series was my first taste of the Batman universe)  – I was so excited to read there was going to be a ‘out’ gay character in this movie. My excitement quickly turned to fighting the urge to throw my TV out the window.

Overall I’d give this a 3/5 as the only saving grace for this piece of sexist garbage is the excellent voice work of the cast. Maybe the DC Animation department should now look to the future and work on original ideas instead of rehashing classic stories and turning them into this hideous car crash !

If you wanna see a feature length Batman Animated outing done right – go rent Mask of the Phantasm!!!!!

By Jay Connors.

Whenever a beloved movie franchise is rumoured or confirmed to be in the process of remake or reboot, there’s always a mist of controversy and outrage. Whether it’s modern Asian cinema given a localisation like ‘Infernal Affairs’ (remade as ‘The Departed’) and ‘Oldboy’, or essential parts of growing up like ‘The Karate Kid’ or ‘RoboCop’, panic often sets in before a frame has even been shot.

There’s usually cause for concern, with most films of this type often being cheap cash ins to a film series that has worn itself out, or simply failing to make its own unique mark which asks the question – why bother? But remakes have always had their part to play, ironically in the 80s with films like ‘The Fly’ and ‘The Thing’ being favourites that were remakes themselves, and most likely without the backlash we see today now 80s movies are ripe for the picking. With the concept of ‘rebooting’ a franchise now generally more accepted, with cheeky references to the original and cameos galore for fans to spot and geek out over, it’s no wonder ‘Ghostbusters’ was picked up for a fresh lick of paint.

Despite the 2nd film not having the same cultural impact as the original, much like ‘Predator’ which had its own reboot to some success only a few years ago, fans have been clamouring for a new instalment for so very long, and it looked to be on the table for years. Multiple scripts that didn’t meet the cut, along with an ageing cast (including the sadly departed Harold Ramis), meant the only chance for the 3rd film to go ahead would be to undergo a whole new direction. With Paul Feig (‘Bridesmaids’) at the helm, naturally the changeup would mean a female cast at the centre of things.

And so the internet exploded.

With ‘Bridesmaids’ and ‘Spy’ both being massive critical hits, with ‘The Heat’ also scoring respectable points in its own right, there’s no doubt that Feig is able to produce a movie that people like. Allowing him to create a new ‘Ghostbusters’ film should have been cause for celebration, as we otherwise could’ve ended up with a music video director and a handful of unknowns from MTV shows to appeal to the youth market. Does that really sound more pleasing?

Yet this is the situation we’re in, as it feels I can’t even talk about the quality of the movie without addressing this multiple year attempt to poison the well that came before release. Even as we speak, over 10,000 accounts (let’s not say people) have voted it a 1 on popular movie cesspool IMDb, despite the fact the vast majority haven’t seen it. We didn’t get this reaction when ‘Point Break’ was given a remake a mere 7 months ago (for reasons nobody understands to this day), so sadly we have to assume this is down to this new wave of anti-women hatred that has oozed itself so vocally out of the anonymous depths of the web in the last few years. “It’s destroyed my childhood!” simply doesn’t stand up, unless you want to be viewed as someone who hasn’t grown up one bit in 30 years.

And that’s one of several reasons that ‘Ghostbusters’ is important, if simply to challenge this viewpoint where it hurts them. And while it isn’t, and never was going to be, as ‘good’ as the original, its existence is welcome to so many.

It’s a positive thing that girls, who were so horribly represented on screen during the golden years most 30 something males enjoyed  while we grew up, are now shown they can be equally billed on a beloved franchise. The same people who were sad that the only character they were supposed to relate to in the classic version were a secretary or the ‘gatekeeper’, are now able to be the heroes. For a man or woman to be able to take their daughter to a big summer blockbuster where women kick ass with science, and have people to believe in and look up to is objectively a good thing.

The plot, now we’ve got all that out the way, revolves around the reunification of Erin (Kristen Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) who went different paths in their science careers. Having confronted Abby over publishing a long forgotten and potentially embarrassing ghost theory book, Erin discovers their original beliefs were in fact true as New York City begins to be inundated with the undead. Together with fellow scientist Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) and Patty (Leslie Jones), an MTA worker with an equally useful knowledge of the city, the pair form a society dedicated to proving the existence of ghosts.

And so it’s a shame, but not necessarily a problem, that ‘Ghostbusters’ isn’t a five star, absolute riot of a movie. It’s for the most part humorous rather than hilarious, and sometimes relies on aforementioned callbacks and cameos too much to get a (warranted) reaction from the audience, but has enough it gets right that it doesn’t matter. The plot borrows enough from the original while carving its own path, and both character design and equipment styling has been given a lot of care and thought. For fans of the original, it’s a fresh enough origin story with a very different cast and approach that should entertain, while younger audiences will be able to go in unbiased and understand why the world loved the Ghostbusters originally.

2016’s ‘Ghostbusters’ is very much a film of its time, with frequent references to technology and the backlash it provides that the original movie simply couldn’t comment on. It feels enough time has passed that society’s attitudes have shifted in a way that allows a different viewpoint to essentially the same base story.

While some more characterisation and relationship between the characters wouldn’t have gone amiss, the four leads work well together and feel natural picks for the role. Feig and Katie Dippold did solid work with giving us new characters that aren’t simply replicants of the classic cast, but have a bit of familiarity at the same time. Stand out star is Kate McKinnon, who for several years has been a fan favourite on ‘Saturday Night Live’, who might be quite divisive amongst viewers due to just how ‘out there’ her character is, but you simply can’t not be drawn to her whenever she’s on screen.

Outside of an appropriately SNL themed set of lead and side characters (Wiig is an ex-cast member, McCarthy has hosted several times, while Leslie Jones and Cecily Strong are current cast members) the under-utilised Neil Casey makes for a great villain, while Chris Hemsworth gets to show off his comic chops in an attempt to steal the crown from Channing Tatum in heartthrob-turned-funnyman roles.

Overall, ‘Ghostbusters’ is simply fun. Tune out the whining of people who insist this is all about attacking straight males, and enjoy the fact we get to bust some ghosts again for the first time in decades.

*** 1/2

Ming of Harlem, Phillip Warnell’s debut feature documentary is the story of a Bengal tiger, raised by Antoine Yates in a 21st floor apartment.

The story itself could take 5 minutes to tell but Warnell knows that the audience needs to be immersed, as much as is possible, in the surroundings: the community; the apartment building. Warnell wants the viewer to really understand this environment. The direction allows the film to breathe. It hints at the story, then teases it out via news footage and police radio recordings. This supports the commentary from Yates as he tours the neighbourhood, describing how it was to live there. The hallways of the apartment building are institutional to say the least. Lingering views of the corridors foster the feeling of claustrophobia.

There are lengthy silent shots, though it is never really silent in a busy inner-city environment. This creates space into which questions tumble. Questions about ethics and boundaries, hypocrisy and social norms. Questions about architecture, urban planning and mental health.

“Why did you have these animals?” asks a reporter

“Love” Yates replies

“Explain that to us” she responds

“About love?” he asks

Halfway through the film the slow pace becomes too much. The tedium of it all – a trapped tiger with not enough room to roam. The obvious response is that this animal should be in the wild. Yates’ response to this is “Unfortunately, there’s no real wild.” Man is responsible for destroying so much natural habitat. People are hypocrites when they keep some animals captive and not others. He truly believes that Ming was safer, for himself and the general public, kept in the apartment.

A 21st floor apartment is not a good zoo, but then what is a good zoo? Is there such a thing? Yates is telling us that one way or another we need to question where to draw the line. Warnell has a broader agenda. He wants the viewer to think about how people live, stacked up in dense urban areas. Sure, these apartments are not suitable for tigers, but how suitable are they for us? He allows Yates to put it to us: “Even people themselves are not free.”

Between Tunisia and Sicily, the Italian volcanic island of Pantelleria is the setting of A BIGGER SPLASH: A house, four people and a load of emotional conflict.  Pantelleria is a 15km long former penal colony with sulfuric mud baths, beautiful rock pools, Giorgio Armani’s holiday house and thousands of stranded North African refugees attempting to make it to Europe. It is politically Italian and geographically African.

Famous rock musician Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton, channelling Bowie in full makeup) and her younger photographer partner Paul (Mathieu Schoenaerts) are living an idyllic life in a borrowed house, while she silently recovers from debilitating throat surgery. Reading, rest, sunbathing, swimming, sex, repeat.

Loquacious music-producer Harry Hawkes (Ralph Fiennes) surprisingly turns up to this remote place with his newly discovered daughter Penelope (Dakota Johnson), an enigmatic provocateur seemingly trying on her newly-discovered Dad’s style for size. Harry is the type of character that nobody can resist – talks to everyone, smiles widely and has no inhibitions. Ambiguous relationships between each character are slowly revealed, creating a slow-burn tension.

Director Luca Guadagnino has collaborated with Tilda Swinton for the past 25 years, with their most prominent films together being LOVE FACTORY & I AM LOVE. Producers Studio Canal approached Guadagnino with the idea to reinterpret Jacques Deray’s 1969 classic, La Piscine. Initially underwhelmed, he approached writer David Kajganich (BLOOD CREEK & TRUE STORY) and they collaborated on a subversive alternative to the original, keeping the names of the original characters as well as the basic plot.

Marianne’s enforced silence was Swinton’s suggestion, and despite a necessary reworking of the script, Kajganich exploited the opportunity: “When you’re writing, you’re always looking for a way to maximise the dramatic potential of a scene without text. If you can find ways for people to explore what they want or try to get what they want without just talking about it, it is really helpful”.

Swinton says her motivation came from a real need to stop talking: “At a moment in my own life when I was all out of words, I proposed the idea of this woman unable to speak into the established story of ancient histories and new lives thrown into relief by one another. Not only as a twist to ramp up the tensions between the characters, but also as a way of exploring the possibilities of silence in a portrait of a character surrounded by the noise of others and the legacy of the noise she had herself made in the past.”

Someone does eventually vanish and we are left to speculate on the inside stories of each character. The film is an excellent introspective trip with a heightened aesthetic. I bet you will desperately or curiously read the credits in search of the name of the designer who created every beautiful thing that Tilda Swinton wore…It was Raf Simons for Dior.

Four versions of swimming pool have been made, some inspired by Alain Page’s novel of the same name. For some warm summer evening viewing, here are three more:

Jacques Deray’s original film LA PISCINE (1969) with Alain Delon, Romy Schneider and Jane Birkin gravitating around the pool in St Tropez. Two versions were made in French and English, with the English version having a slightly different ending, so take your pick.

Indian director J. Sasikumar made the Malayalam-language version SWIMMING POOL (1976). No synopsis exists so if any watches it, let me know.

French director Francois Ozon’s SWIMMING POOL (2003) has crime writer Charlotte Rampling seeking solitude in her agent’s holiday house with the inevitable pool in the south of France.  Her agent’s daughter (Ludivine Sagnier) turns up, bringing complications and the inevitable crime.