REVIEW - The Wolverine

[WARNING - This post contains SPOILERS. I recommend you only read on after having seen the film for yourself]

Immortality. It's an interesting concept. Not simply the sheer invulnerability to be able to laugh in the face of death; it's simultaneously the curse of seeing each and every person you've ever loved grow old and die. Wolverine knows this all too well. Born in the 1880s, he's fought through both World Wars, Vietnam, witnessed countless human atrocities through the ages. He's got a lot of time on his hands but still he's a busy man.

Image by Mondi via Flickr

The Wolverine sees Hugh Jackman's sixth big-screen outing as the titular mutant. Unlike 2009's other X-spin-off, this one takes place chronologically as the most recent in the X-Men saga.

Following the events of The Last Stand, Logan has seemingly abandoned his fellow mutants and returned to the loner life in his home nation of Canada. We find him suffering from nightmares, reeling from the aforementioned film's climax in which he was forced to kill Jean, the woman he loved. It's not long before he's typically pulled into an unexpected adventure though as ghosts from his past summon him to Japan.

Said ghosts relate to the film's opening minutes, one of the single best scenes in the entire series. Logan, serving time in Japanese POW camp, observes the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki and saves one if his young captors from certain death. It's beautifully shot and an example of the many squandered opportunities that could have been taken by FOX with Wolverine as a character. Imagine if the previous Wolverine movie had chosen to focus entirely on his war-torn journey through the course of a century instead of wasting all that narrative gold on an opening credits montage.

As he arrives in Tokyo to say a final goodbye to the now elderly dying man he saved so many years ago, he's faced with an intriguing offer. Would he give up his immortal gift if it were possible? (Apparently it is, but the film doesn't really go into the mechanics of that) Would he do that to end his suffering? As the film puts it, he's a ronin, a soldier without a master, with no further purpose. Surely he's been through enough to warrant an end.

Only the X-Men movies have never done a good job of showing that suffering. Logan's always been portrayed as an angry and confused guy but he's never felt like a man who'd lived through such a traumatic lifetime. If Jean's death is the mortal wound from which his pain derives, surely Logan of all people can get over that, people have gotten over far worse.

Past issues aside, this is the best Jackman has ever been. Bringing real gravitas to the character while maintaining the usual no-nonsense bitterness and wit we've come to expect of Logan. It's the most adult X-film and this is reflected in it's use of violence. The combat is simultaneously visceral and elegant, a mirror to the controlled and balletic martial arts of Japan. It remains largely bloodless (as is the norm with such Hollywood blockbusters) and yet certain scenes, particularly when Logan performs open-heart surgery on himself, are enough to make even the hardiest of gore-philes squirm. The sense of urgency and (for the first time) genuine palpable concern for Wolverine's life comes through during the period in which he loses his healing ability. I was skeptical at first but it adds to the film in a way that I wouldn't have imagined.

Action sequences are well choreographed and often see Logan using his head as much as brute force, but it's Wolverine's heart that always led him in these movies. As he takes it upon himself to protect Mariko, a young woman forced into a very dangerous position by the men of her powerful family. Through their interactions, we get a real feel for both traditional and contemporary Japanese culture as Logan comes to learn the value of honour and his place in the world.

Performances are strong throughout, particularly in the Japanese cast. Standouts include Tao Okamoto as the distrusting but pure Mariko, Rilo Fukushima as Yukio, the self-proclaimed bodyguard to Logan and the ever reliable Hiroyuki Sanada as Shingen. Other characters don't fair quite as well, more so for their lack of necessity to the plot. Particularly Svetlana Khodchenkova's Viper (the only new mutant addition to the cast) who seems to only be here in order for a half-reasonable way for Wolverine to get poisoned.

James Mangold's directing style shines through in a genre movie unlike his previous output. He revels in the landscape of his pictures and as such, both the coastal and forest locales are as vibrant and beautiful as the fluorescent towers of Tokyo. The Land of the Rising Sun serves as a stunning backdrop for Mangold's intense character drama, coming across as a character in it's own right.

The film falters slightly in it's third act, as the prerequisite final showdown creeps up. Some disjointed foreshadowing aside, the final scenes almost feel like they belong in another movie. There are a number of lapses in logic throughout given the canon already set within the franchise (though continuity has long since been cast asunder). His adamantium skeleton is not what makes Wolverine immortal, so why would the villain think that building an armoured suit out of it would help him in any way. Previously established (some loving) relationships seem to unravel at the drop of a hat during the final third and it's a less satisfying end to an otherwise admirable film.

What's most shocking however is the choice to fundamentally alter one of our hero's key features come the end credits. While his healing powers and metal skeleton remain, his claws, or at least the metal portion of them, do not. What this means for future releases remains to be seen. Particularly the sequential follow-up Days Of Future Past (which is teased to great effect in a mid-credits scene) next year.

The Wolverine is, in spite of a few relatively minor flaws, one of the better X-Men films. It sits right behind X-Men 2 in my eyes. The best interpretation of Logan and above all a coherent and genuinely entertaining piece. Logan may not live forever but if his trials and tribulations continue to be as stand-out as this, fans should look forward to seeing him right through to the bitter end.

Directed by James Mangold

Starring Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rilo Fukushima, Hiroyuki Sanada, Hal Yamanouchi, Will Yun Lee, Svetlana Khodchenkova & Famke Janssen

4/5

The Usual Suspects - DC's "Shared" Cinematic Universe

Image by JD Hancock via Flickr

[Warning : This post contains SPOILERS for some recent/upcoming films]

Big-budget filmmaking can be a risky business. Warner Bros. know this all too well apparently if June's announcement of Superman Vs. Batman, or whatever title ends up befalling it, is anything to go by.

On the face of it, what's not to like? Who doesn't want to see arguably the two most iconic superheroes of all time share the screen in a live action epic? The Last Son Of Krypton and the Dark Knight together! Marvel Studios have been riding high on their "shared universe" formula for the past five years and with many more promised (and crucially detailed) to come. It makes sense financially for WB to follow suit, laying the groundwork for a future Justice League movie and so they appear to be doing so. The disappointing truth however is that we're now waiting with bated breath to see... the last son of Krypton and the dark knight, again.

Since 1978, a total of 18 movies based on characters from the mainstream DC Comics universe have been produced by Warner Bros.; seven of those centring on Batman, six on Superman. By comparison, the modern renaissance of the superhero genre was spearheaded by Marvel properties with 1998's Blade and 2000's X-Men. Since then, twenty-eight subsequent films based on Marvel characters have hit the big screen. I should also point out that this article is not intended as a Marvel vs. DC discussion but more in the differences in approach that their respective studios are taking. An argument of over-saturation of the market would be entirely valid. I'd agree the ratio of good to bad superhero movies tips notably toward the latter. Yet the genre, like a fine wine, has grown more flavoursome with age.

Image by marvelousRoland via Flickr

For the most part, Marvel Studios' Avengers series and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy have proved to be the most critically acclaimed and profitable examples of superhero filmmaking in history. Marvel's mix of light-hearted family fare and knowing comic-booky action is consistent throughout the series and it's that winning maxim that saw Joss Whedon's The Avengers to becoming the third highest grossing film of all time. Conversely, Nolan's Batman trilogy took an altogether different approach in bringing a grounded, dark and serious take on the tale of Bruce Wayne. The Dark Knight Trilogy's success lies not purely in the iconic appeal of Batman himself but in that each film works as a crime thriller in it's own right. They are the story of a strong-hearted vigilante's battle against the terrorists and psychopaths that threaten the city he holds dear. You could liken him to Harry Callahan or Paul Kersey, he just happens to dress up as a bat.

Respect to Nolan for upholding his auter-style and choosing to conclude it as definitive trilogy but he left WB with something of a problem. With his and Christian Bale's interpretation of the caped crusader being self-contained and apart from any potential shared universe, they had no choice but to introduce a new Bruce Wayne in order to maintain their primary cash-cow. DC Comics after all is now their paramount franchise option. The other prominent franchise owned by WB is of course Harry Potter. Given the inevitably conclusive status of that series, it was understandable that the studio would choose to bring the DC property to the forefront as their tentpole property. The superhero movie genre having been thus far dominated by Marvel properties, WB were in many ways coming late to the party. And so came Man Of Steel...

Image by Mark Anderson via Flickr

Superman's grand return to the blockbuster arena may have been met with mixed reviews, but while I have my own reservations about it (a little too much Jor-El for my liking), a large proportion of complaints are aimed at what I consider to be some of the film's greatest assets, at least in terms of franchise potential. The wanton destruction of Metropolis, the presumably hundreds of lives lost and the brutal killing of General Zod all leave masses of possibilities for developing this new Superman as a character removed just the right distance from the goody-goody Christopher Reeve version. Sure, in the comics Superman doesn't kill, nor does Batman, it's part of their fundamental code. The difference is that Bruce Wayne had years to train and define himself, setting himself a rule before even taking the costume to the streets. Henry Cavill's Superman wasn't afforded such luxury, he's presented with a tremendous threat to his "home" planet just as he comes to discover who he really is. The fallout of what are essentially his first few hours as Superman should allow him to go on to learn from the consequences of his actions. These are the themes I would hope are explored in the sequel.

And then they shoehorned Batman into it.

Don't get me wrong, Batman is probably my favourite character in all superhero mythos. I grew up on him. I consider Batman: The Animated Series to be the single greatest cartoon show ever made. I've loved five out of seven Batman movies from childhood to present (you'll know the two that didn't make the cut, I'm sure). The Arkham game series are among the pinnacle of video-gaming today. Yet while I wholly expect and welcome the unavoidable introduction of a new man behind the cowl, when Warner Bros. were set to make an announcement at this year's Comic-Con, I suppose I just hoped for more.

Image by JD Hancock via Flickr

While Iron Man, Captain America and the like may now be household names, upon Iron Man's release in 2008, Tony Stark was very much a B-list character in Marvel's catalogue, as were the rest of the Avengers - if not further down said list. Nevertheless, Marvel Studios have taken risks with their long-term game plan. "Phase One" of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" has long been complete and has yielded staggering results both critically and monetarily. Such profit was undoubtedly aided by the strategy of announcing release plans for the next few years well ahead of time. Committing to several pictures under the confidence that their product was worth their time and money and imperatively the audience's wait. "Phase Two" is taking even bigger risks with five announced future releases, notably Guardians Of The Galaxy, a film packed full of C and D-list characters and yet the very movie that I for one am most looking forward to. Said anticipation is not nearly matched by the promised future output for DC's characters... You know, that one with the two guys we've seen and heard from many times before.

In building a shared universe with the intention of forming a Justice League movie, shouldn't even a slightly similar ballsy attitude be taken by WB? When I think of the League, I think of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. This is not because I'm a stickler for comic-lore. I'm not. That is just as iconic as they get as far as I'm concerned. They were created before the Avengers, this is surely the archetypal superhero team, they're the originals. So why is it that they haven't all had the big screen treatment but come 2014 Rocket Raccoon will have?

Image by Kyle Jones via Flickr

The problem is that WB don't want to take a risk, they've been burned before through bad creative decisions. Studio interference on the whole is a less than desirable prospect for any filmmaker, just ask Kevin Smith.

2011's attempt at a Green Lantern film is the most notable example of WB branching out beyond the "big two", an attempt that many would agree, failed. Green Lantern and his mythology aren't necessarily unfilmable, it simply needs the right creative talents to bring it to life properly. What Warner Bros. have done so well with the Dark Knight films and Man Of Steel is differentiate them from the competition, they've made films as grounded as they can be based on the source material and presented them in a far more serious fashion. Green Lantern missed the boat in this respect and so, if it's to be part of this new universe, will have to be rebooted along with Batman. What I wanted from the Comic-Con announcement was for a Flash, Wonder Woman and yes, maybe even an Aquaman movie to be confirmed. It would have been gratifying to see their cards laid on the table rather than placing a safe bet. As old-fashioned as these characters may be by today's standards, they are certainly not outside of the realms of good, if not excellent translation. Yes, Green Arrow may be soaking up the TV limelight at the moment and with Flash soon set to join him. However if the plan is to incorporate these iterations into a shared universe, judging by the quality of Arrow, I wouldn't hold out much hope for success. Consistency between properties is the key. As Marvel did; if it works, stick with it, build upon the foundations you've laid.

So on the subject of Superman Vs. Batman (got to change that title), instead of moistening the mouths of every fan in the world with the promise of a series of films that would bring their childhood dreams to life, WB simply announced their next Superman film would not only feature Kal-El but Bruce Wayne as well. It's bankable of course, short of some catastrophic casting choices, there's no doubt that the film will make vast amounts of money. It's just safe though isn't it. Admittedly it's not my money on the line but at this rate, we'll have the third film add Wonder Woman into the mix and won't get Justice League until around 2021. In that time, the Avengers will have long since defeated Thanos, destroyer of the universe and pretty much capped the extremes of superheroics. How will the League top that for a general audience?

Image by Pat Loika via Flickr

Perhaps DC's strength could lie in it's ability to tell real existential tales of gods among men. What does it mean to wield such awesome power and how does it affect the very people you strive to protect? Prior to WB's reveal, my hopes for the Man Of Steel sequel included finally seeing a cinematic interpretation of Lex Luthor that feels like a genuine threat to Superman. Imagine a billionaire industrialist shepherding the reconstruction of Metropolis following the final act of the first film. Such a man, be he a politician or prominent and respected public figure, would use his intelligence and fortune to manipulate the public zeitgeist into perceiving Superman as a being to be feared. As opposed to Lex being just some guy with Kryptonite, this would be a far more philosophical and challenging opponent for Superman to defeat, especially given his presumable new restrictions of no killing.

In their defence, such a plotline does in many ways lend itself perfectly to incorporating Bruce Wayne as a character, already long established as Batman. There's no need to see the origin again, everyone knows who Batman is and where he comes from. Indeed, the proposed introduction of an older, wizened Dark Knight holds a lot of appeal. A Batman more entrenched in his code, motives and bitter world view could act as an excellent foil (and eventual partner) to the optimistic but untested Superman.  He would certainly teach him a few things. Though should the promised exchange of blows comes to fruition, surely there's only one outcome to that fight. It will be interesting to see how it's handled in this grounded universe.

Regardless, time will have to tell on what the future holds for The Avengers main competition. Maybe we'll see something truly unexpected in the near future but in the meantime, Bruce and Clark will have to do as far the cinema goes. In this age of remakes and reboots, it's often hard to find originality. I relish the prospect of the current resurgence in original science-fiction, but above all, as a member of the movie-going public, what I want is to see things I haven't seen before. Although the likes of the Flash and Wonder Woman have been around for decades, they are essentially untapped in their cinematic potential. Instead of playing it safe on proven ground, gather the right creative minds together and define the themes and story that could set this franchise apart from it's contemporaries. That's how you draw an audience, that's how you make money. Offer us something new and exciting. Warners need to take a few risks, all it takes is a little push.