DC > MARVEL: WHY THE DC FILMVERSE IS BETTER THAN MARVEL

Since the 1930's, there has been a friendly rivalry between Marvel and DC that stemmed from comic books and graphic novels, but this 'battle of the geek' has now transcended onto the big screen.

There's no doubt about it, everyone has a favourite superhero-flick and that film is more likely to be of the Marvel franchise. But arguably, the reason for this is because Marvel has emitted so many more film releases than their rival, DC. Another reason why DC is less successful is probably because some people don't even know what the DC universe is! Not to worry, this article will answer that question.

This on screen dual between DC and Marvel started in 2008 with Marvel releasing both "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk" and at the same time DC hitting it big with their double Academy Award winner "The Dark Knight" (the only comic book adapted film to win two Oscars). Since 2008, Marvel have released 21 films either under several production studios such as Columbia Pictures, Marvel Studios and 20th Century Fox. Compare this to DC who, since 2008 have only released 6 films and you would assume, by right, DC would have fallen behind in the race for superhero supremacy.

Heath Ledger won Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role for his portrayal as The Joker in "The Dark Knight"

Logically, Marvel would be seen to be the more successful franchise through its box office hits "Avengers Assemble" (2012), "Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015) and admittedly the brilliantly hilarious "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014). But if looked upon more closely, you'll find that it is DC who have found routes for success in the long run, rather than to solely smash the box office records.

Marvel's films tend to be lightly toned and represent their main characters as shining examples of justice i.e. Captain America or have characters that thrive on humour and quick wit such as Iron Man or Star-Lord.

The crucial difference why the DC Universe will succeed in the long run and ultimately have a prolonged stay in our minds is their films hold a commodity that the Marvel Universe has not yet explored properly, which is political undertones. "The Dark Knight" for example, possesses this commodity through its storytelling vision that 'social order can only function if based on a lie' with The Joker embodying 'the truth', which means destruction.

However, where Marvel betters DC is through its more developed and planned structure. Marvel's continuous cohesion both on page and on screen began with "Iron Man" in 2008 and with the addition of The Hulk, Captain America, Thor and others, Marvel made a foundation and gathered momentum by creating a team of superheroes that would later become the Avengers. Whilst Marvel were 'assembling' (see what I did there...), DC chose to instead release smaller and lesser known films such as the underrated "Jonah Hex" (2010) and the bold exercise of superhero liberation, "Watchmen" (2009), which evokes the feel of a true graphic novel. This choice to release smaller and unknown DC character films, that essentially are not aimed at children, has given the DC franchise a limited audience and allowed Marvel to target its films for a more varied fan base.

"Watchmen" (far left): The Comedian, Silk Spectre, Dr Manhattan, Ozymandias, Nite Owl & Rorschach (far right)  

But that's why DC is the better filmverse, because they are more interested in delving their stories with more mature materials. Marvel's films seems to be filled with running gags and concentrate on pushing product. Marvel does this through hinting at the "next big superhero film" that is going to follow the one previous. DC allows the viewer to enjoy their films for what they are and not for they are going to be. Although DC have announced their intentions to entwine Batman and Superman with the "Man of Steel" (2013), there is no use of press junkies to over-sell their film, something Marvel have repeatedly done since 2008. DC let their films do the talking, rather than shoving their product in the public's face.

With 2016 just around the corner, both DC and Marvel have revealed their next step in their respective filmverses, but it seems Marvel will not be able to compete. DC intend to release the much anticipated "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" and the greatest supervillian film of our time, "Suicide Squad". And what are Marvel offering? Another jokey-filled character in "Deadpool", the unknown entity of "Gambit", a third installment for the fatigued Captain America franchise with "Civil War" and finally, "X-Men: Apocalypse", which probably is the best option of Marvel's 2016 releases.

The point still stands though, DC have the two most well known superheroes in Batman and Superman who possess a wealth of material to draw from when they become foes. Marvel gave us a fight between Captain America and Thor, but that is going to be child's play when DC's two most popular characters collide. It's going to be like watching Greek Gods fight for Mount Olympus.

To conclude, Marvel it seems have not taken enough risks with their directors, whilst DC learnt to roll the dice more after the success Christopher Nolan gave to the "Dark Knight Triliogy". With Zack Snyder (a proven director with "300" and "Watchmen") at the helm of "BvS: Dawn of Justice" and David Goyer ("Fury") directing "Suicide Squad", it will be a year to remember for all comic book fans alike.

FACEBOOK AND THE NAUSEATING OPINIONS OF THE IGNORANT

Now before I start this article, let me remind the reader that I'm aware Facebook doesn't hurt people, oh no. It is people that hurt people, but what I'm trying to convey is that in some cases (not all thankfully), Facebook is being used to display disgusting views of the ignorant.

I'm sure you are aware that this notion is nothing new, but as I was scrolling through my newsfeed recently, I spotted a story that someone had shared on their timeline. The story was about a man named John Morton, a former teacher who admitted six counts of indecently assaulting several girls aged seven and eleven in the 1980's/90's. The former teacher has now served his jail time of 2 years and moved back to Glossop, Derbyshire.

Although the behaviour performed by John Morton is upsetting and should not be condoned in any society, it wasn't the article that caught my attention, but the comments left by Facebook users. The first comment that struck me was "My mate Morton lad lol". It seems this situation is a joke to this user of which they can perversely share their opinion in a neo-language way (by using the word "lol").

A person who liked the first comment, had an opinion of their own by stating, "Looks like Rolf harris's brother, Dirty scum bag !" Now, all of sudden John Morton is being compared to Rolf Harris, a convicted offender of 12 counts of indecent assault. By liking the first comment that poked-fun at the situation and then stating that John Morton is a "Dirty scum bag", it seems this second commentor small minded hypocrite. It seems the second commenter believes it's acceptable to laugh at child abuse and then voice their derogative and ignorant view by condemning the convicted man.

A third person then left a comment stating, "Looks like Shipman", again relating Morton to another convicted offender, but this time it's Dr Harold Shipman, one of the most prolific serial killers in recorded history. Granted, there are physical similarities to both Morton and Shipman, but by 'painting them with the same brush', (something this third commenter is intently doing) both convicted offenders are being placed in the catergory of the "Other"; this being a group of individuals that are mentally or physically separate from society.

But I ask you, what is society? Because judging by these pathetic comments, I believe Facebook has created a society in which we as the public can 'get on our high horse' and log in to a social network site and have our 'two cents worth', but not to create debate, make interesting theories or change public opinion for the better, instead we generalise and stigmatise others who are different to us or have done something indecent.

I'm not asking for Facebook to be taken away from ignorant people, I firmly believe in freedom of speech, however, what I hope this article does is makes people realise that freedom of speech is a privilege not an entitlement. Also, Facebook users need to think about the impact of what they write on social media sites because these sites are powerful tools. Take for example these commenters; in the article it states Mr Morton's address. If this information was seen by a violent individual, then these comments may sway that individual to take physical action on a convicted offender who has already served his time and is already living a life in which I'm sure he's looking over his shoulder everyday.

A thought to leave you with is, John Morton was caught and convicted for an offence I'm sure he regrets, but we've all done stupid things we are either ashamed of or regret, the only difference is, no one knows about your indiscretion(s). So I implore anyone to stop using Facebook as a way to voice their nauseating opinions and instead, use it as a way to stay informed and to share memories and life events.

If you've got an opinion on what you think Facebook has become or is becoming, then comment below...

Overrated and underrated films of this decade so far (2011 - 2015)

Bane from "The Dark Knight Rises"

And so 2015 is nearing to an end. How time flies, ey? It's crazy to think that we're actually right in the middle of the 2011 - 2020 decade and so to celebrate this milestone, I've compiled an overrated and underrated film for each of the years so far that have past by within this decade. Some you may not agree on and others you will probably say, "Yes! That's a great shout!"

Overrated (2011)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (remake)
Dir: David Fincher

David Fincher has directed some magnificent pieces of art over the years such as "Se7en" (1995) and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008), but on this occasion, his directorial prowess bombed. Apart from a stellar performance by Rooney Mara as Lisbeth, the film just isn't as good as the Swedish version (2009). The film is poorly edited because it constantly and abruptly goes between the parallel stories of Lisbeth and Mikael (Daniel Craig) in a fashion that I felt cuts out needed information within the scene! I did like how the film adapts its own perspective on the dark themes within the Stieg Larsson franchise, but again it is done in a way that is too westernised and forced, which is probably the reason they're yet still to remake the following two films in the Dragon Tattoo series. 

Underrated (2011)

Perfect Sense

Dir: David Mackenzie 

The first film on this list to unfairly fall under the proverbial film radar is "Perfect Sense". This plot is a far-fetched, but non-the-less unique. Ewan McGregor plays a Glaswegian chef who develops a budding romance with scientist, Eva Green. However, reports develop that people are inexplicably loosing their senses one by one, which in turn creates a pure relationship between the inescapably doomed couple. With each sense being lost, the victim succumbs to a different emotion, which is a clever ploy by director Mackenzie, because it concentrates on the personal rather than the worldwide pandemic.

Overrated (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises

Dir: Christopher Nolan 

One of the most controversial picks of overrated films on this list, but one I firmly stand by. With the undeniable success of 2008's "The Dark Knight" (the second film from Nolan's Batman series), there was a great expectancy from the third installment, but even after some amazing scenes involving incredibly timed explosions and special effects, "The Dark Knight Rises" just didn't have the cutting edge brilliance that everyone was expecting. Maybe it's because of how incredibly high the expectations actually were, or maybe it's because of the disappointing death of Tom Hardy's Bane after being such a commanding force for Bruce Wayne to deal for two and half hours. However, the ending felt incredibly rushed to the point that the audience went from the the main fight scene between the 'goodies' and the 'baddies', to the lights coming on in the cinema within a matter of a few jumbled minutes. I'm not saying "The Dark Knight Rises" sucked, because it firmly deserves it rating as No.61 in IMDB's top 250, I just think that after all the hype, it was a massive let down. 

Underrated (2012)

Dredd

Dir: Pete Travis

2012 brought a second attempt at bringing 2000 AD's most iconic character to the big screen with "Dredd". This attempt however was significantly more successful than the cringe worthy, one-liner filled first attempt "Judge Dredd" (1995), starring the mumbling Sylvester Stallone. Probably the reasoning behind Dredd's (2012) lack of success was because of the lack of marketing and people probably stigmatised it with the woeful 1995 version (me admittedly being a guilty party for doing so). However, Karl Urban gives an awesome, ego-free performance through a commanding and intimating presence and thankfully keeps to the comics and only reveals the bottom half of his face throughout with the above half completely covered with his visor helmet. Dredd is a full blown slick, compact and at times, beautifully made thrill ride which grips the audience from the word go. It's brilliantly cast with Urban teaming up with rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) who both have to power through one of Mega City's mile-high tower blocks to bring justice to the always impressive Lena Headey, who plays the film's main antagonist, Ma-Ma.

Overrated (2013)

Man of Steel

Dir: Zack Snyder 

This film is similar to "The Dark Knight Rises" for two reasons, 1) it's a DC superhero film and 2) it is a prime example of when a film is hyped up so much, it actually hurts a little inside when it fails so badly. The only good thing about "Man of Steel" is the epic opening sequence. Superman's native planet, Krypton is about to explode due to the planet's unstable radioactive core and at the same time a coup d'état led by General Zod (Michael Shannon) occurs. A baby by the name of Kal-El, the first naturally born Kryptonian in centuries, is infused with a codex and propelled towards Earth, to safety. Eventually General Zod is captured and a monumentally-high-raising scene begins where the General and his followers are exiled to The Phantom Zone of which they are indirectly freed after Krypton's eventual explosion. Unfortunately, that's about it! Nothing really happens after that except a standard fight between good verses evil, which coincidentally results in an entire city to be  flattened. Henry Cavill's portrayal of the famous caped crusader is apathetic and annoying, whilst not enough back story is given to General Zod who in my opinion carried the film with his fierce attitude and his need for revenge (albeit his views were similar to one of a Nazi). In short "Man of Steel" started off magnificently, but eventually bombed because it was too slow throughout and was way too predictable.

  

Underrated (2013)

Oblivion

Dir: Joseph Kosinski

On first examination of Oblivion's trailer, the audience would believe this is another film filled with to rafters with explosions, of which you would assume is probably carried by its choice of cast in Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman, but "Oblivion" is more than that. It is truly sci-fi film with a heart and Cruise's character, Jack is at the centre. Throughout the film, the audience is constantly trying to guess the end result, full well knowing that everything is not what it seems and Oblivion's well-woven plot does not disappoint. Cruise is present throughout this original philosophical journey, whilst Freeman and other supporting actors are given limited screen time, but done so in a way which is done effectively and memorable. The soundtrack is sublimely supplied by French electronic band M83, which really gives the film that extra sci-fi feel. "Oblivion" really was one of few great films in a year that held a lot of abysmal offerings. If you have not seen it yet, I implore you to do so. Plus, I'm just going to say, Tom Cruise is awesome. 

Overrated (2014)

Foxcatcher

Dir: Bennett Miller

Indian film director Raja Sen described "Foxcatcher" as 'Deathly dull and far too graceless' and I couldn't agree more. Steve Carell has been lauded by critics for his portrayal of John du Mont, of which I just can't seem to fathom why, because personally it seems that Carell is just performing a really long Saturday Night Live sketch. I felt Carell overacted in a sense his potrayal was 'too alien' and actually made me emotionally heave whenever he was on screen. The plot of "Foxcatcher" is of an unusual millionaire who confines himself with an up-and-coming Olympic wrestler, Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum). Eventually after some extremely odd behaviour from Carell's du Mont, Mark finds himself in a whirlwind of drugs and depression and is the recipient of more emotional abuse and some awkward wrestling scenes from du Mont. Not taking anything away from Tatum who is excellent, but Mark Ruffalo, who plays his caring, older brother, Dave Schultz gives a standout performance. Ruffulo's Dave Schultz guides Mark when he really needs it and makes "Foxcatcher" almost worth watching. Almost. 

Underrated (2014)

It Follows

Dir: David Robert Mitchell

"It Follows" owes so much of its cinematography to 1970's and 80's classic horror films, because nods to these retro bygone eras are littered throughout from its Halloween-esque/ synth sound provided by Disaterpiece, to its suspense of unpredictability, which is driven by its ominous tone. The story is of a girl named Jay who becomes the recipient of a mysterious curse of which a wraith literally doesn't stop following her and may take the form of a stranger or even people she knows. The film revels in teen horror because any parental figures are a complete absence, which gives the film a sense of openness  and isolation through a lack of protection for the main characters. The films main theme is paranoia because Jay being the current host of the curse, is constantly on edge because at any moment this entity might come up behind her, an aspect that keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. "It Follows" could arguably described as a metaphorical film because it seems that the wraith may represent an attachment of regret, self condemnation or even guilt that will be forever now latched onto us for the rest of our lives. We all done stupid things, right?

Upon the completion of this article, there will be four months left of 2015 still to go. So it may seem a little harsh to give my opinion on what I believe to be 2015's top overrated and underrated films, but I'm going to give my opinion anyway. So to take a short break from this list, I decided to give my opinion on a film that is neither, but is in fact a remake of a franchise that should have been well left alone. 

  

Remake dud (2015)

Poltergeist

Dir: Gil Kenan 

This remake of the 1982 supernatural horror classic had all the ingredients for success; plenty of marketing, a trailer involving a deranged clown and the addition of an A-list actor in Sam Rockwell (Moon, 2009). The story (in case you don't already know) is about a family that move into a suburban house that unbeknownst to them is beset by an ancient curse and the youngest child is sucked into the television of which she is brought into the eather. However, its failure stems from the fact Hollywood have tried to remake a film which was successful because of the time in which it was made, the 1980's. Television was seen in that era as a dangerous medium and families moving into suburbia was all the rage because of the political noise at that time. Now, this remake doesn't exactly desecrate the original, but the film's plot and ideas just aren't current like they once were. It's not a terrible film, but there just wasn't enough evidence to raise the Poltergeist franchise from the dead, if you'll pardon the pun. 

Now back to the list...

Overrated (2015)

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Dir: Josh Whedon

Is it me, or are all these superhero films beginning to get really irritating? "Avengers: Age of Ultron" did, as predicted by smashing the box office, but my guess is it only did well because it is the second installment of the first Avengers film, which in comparison to the first one, ended up being a major disappointment. Age of Ultron has some great comic book characters, which are portrayed by great actors and actresses, but because there are too many of them, there's no time to go into character development. The reason for this is because the film had too many characters on screen at one time, for example Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury and Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye weren't entirely needed. It just seemed some characters were there for the sake of being there, it just didn't resonate with me. This problem of not enough backstory clashed with the main theme of the film, which concentrated on everyone's deepest fear and psychological worries, which in turn creates a confusion because these characters haven't been explored enough. Another problem with this film is there are too many hints that there is going to be another chapter for our heroes and with confirmed rumours that "Avengers: Civil War" is on its way, the audience don't get a sense of fear for the characters because they didn't seem to be in any real danger. The main problem with "Avengers: Age of Ultron" was there wasn't anything that was going to happen in this film that would devastate the Marvel Universe. 

Underrated (2015)

Ex-Machina 

Dir: Alex Garland 

Ex-Machina asks the most important computer aged question, "What happens when we go too far?" The story starts with Caleb (Donald Gleeson), a young and talented, yet nerdy techie who works for the 'Google-esque' Blue Book search engine. Caleb then wins a competition and is invited to his boss' (Oscar Isaac) custom-built underground research facility where he then meets Ava (Alicia Vikander), which possesses a human face, but a robotic body. Throughout the film you wonder how the story will unfold between these three characters, who cleverly do not share a single scene together, which is arguably done to help the audience feel the different feelings of each character through separation; feelings such as trust, objection and jealousy. All three characters go through captivating transformations from start to finish in particularly Caleb who starts as an excited, but obviously friendless IT stray. However, it soon becomes clear that he is engrossed by Ava and through this engrossment comes out his shell through developing an infatuation, which leads to him to question the ethical dilemma as he no longer sees Ava as a robot, but a captive. The main catalyst that drives Ex Machina is whether a singularity is present and whether affection and attraction can be present between man and machine and finally if a machine can or cannot feel love. There is a section which is a new perspective on robotics that all other films that are similar to Ex Machina have either not answered or not tackled yet. It is the question asked by Caleb to Nathan, “Why sexualise her?” Nathan states a need for a natural connection between a man and a machine and that physical similarity is crucial for this to occur. But the main agenda behind Nathan’s choice to make Ava a woman is, “Because it’s fun”. Ex Machina is an exceptional film that is a story of a metaphorical ballet between man and machine to which the motives of each character is continually guessable.

And there you have it! If you've got an underrated favourite or want to speak your mind of a film that you've deemed overrated, then comment below and give me your thoughts.

COURTROOM GREATS

Over the years the courtroom seems to be a place where a lot of drama occurs, which is probably the reason why so many directors use the intimidating physical attributes of a courtroom within their films. There isn't a modern film that couldn't be improved with a good courtroom scene, well, maybe apart from Godzilla.

Gregory Peck sits along side Brock Peters in "To Kill a Mockingbird"

There have been some fine films set in grand places of justice, no more so than classics such as the weighty and influential "12 Angry Men" (1957) and the racial equality themed, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962). Unfortunately, not all courtroom films have the success they deserve or any success at all, arguably making them underrated or well, maybe the film just isn't that good! As I found out recently when I watched the disappointing and confusing mess that was True Story (2015), starring the miscast (my opinion) James Franco & Jonah Hill.

Henry Fonda and 11 others making up the "12 Angry Men"

However, this like many of my other articles is one that will try and persuade the reader to watch these films that maybe they haven't heard of or have heard of and didn't fancy it. So here are a few courtroom related films you may have missed, but definitely need to take time to watch...

#5 - A Time To Kill
Dir: Joel Schumacher

Before seriously denting the credentials of the Batman franchise with Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997), Joel Schumacher directed the criminal justice drama, "A Time To Kill" (1996), which is based on the first novel by John Grisham. It is a story about Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson), a black man who lives in rural Mississippi who becomes inconsolable after the rape of his 10 year-old daughter by two white supremacist rednecks. Hailey then kills the two rapist in cold blood as they head to the court hearing and seriously injures a deputy in the process. Throughout the film, Hailey is known to be guilty of a revenge killing and even the crippled deputy states under "oath" he would have done to same as Hailey, but being a black man in the evidently still racist state of Mississippi is very unfavourable. The film really hits home within the climatic ending where lawyer Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) vividly describes the sadistic act of the two rapists to the dominantly Caucasian faced jury and then ends by asking, "Now imagine she's white". My only critique with "Time To Kill" is all of its main characters, apart from Hailey are primarily white and it seems that black people used for only background purposes are for atmospheric drive only. For a film with a theme about race equality, this decision is baffling.

#4 - Conviction
Dir: Tony Goldwyn

"Conviction" (2010) is the true story of Betty Anne Waters (Hillary Swank), a working-class family woman with the baggage of a hard childhood. Her brother Kenny, (Sam Rockwell) is wrongfully sentenced for a crime he seemingly didn't commit, which is then the motivation for his sister to reshape her entire life and become a lawyer in order to win his freedom. The focus is put on Betty who knows more than anyone that her brother isn't exactly the nicest of men, but is innocent non the less. This key element of considering evidence rather than the personality of the accused is important to the story because it is the catalyst for the main themes of "Conviction", which are grit, single-mindedness and strength of purpose. The film itself is based on a real life event and includes the introduction of DNA testing, which dramatically helps Kenny Waters's case for innocence, but I won't reveal the outcome you'll have to watch it yourself. Unfortunately, the film doesn't touch on the fact that Betty actually lost her marriage due to her dedicating her life to brother's innocence. However, it is a film that is brilliantly cast and generates urgency of a character who is against the odds and holds strong to her beliefs.

#3 - Philadelphia
Dir: Jonathan Demme

Anything on the subject of the deadly disease that is AIDS is a sensitive matter, so when Hollywood decided to risk a high-budget film about it, well as you could probably predict, it had its skeptics. "Philadelphia" (1993) was a great success and showed that there are more emotional layers to the deadly disease than the inevitable outcome of death. "Philadelphia" is set in the city of brotherly love, but it seems the name is just for show as every character within the film seems to be homophobic. Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is a self-confessed 'excellent lawyer', who is given an important case at an old-line Philadelphia law firm. Soon however, another lawyer notices Beckett has lesions on his forehead that are associated with skin cancer and a cause of the AIDS virus. Beckett is then fired from the law firm because his case has certain files missing, which Beckett believes is a result of sabotage. In steps Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) to defend Beckett in a court of law against the powerful firm that wrongly dismissed him because of his illness. The money and exposure of the case do fall from Miller's eyes and he soon realises that his prejudices against the gay community are wrong. Although a predictable notion, it is done so beautifully that it is a real eye-opener for the audience, which is what film making is all about, is it not? 'To change the perspective of the masses in order for progression'. Philadelphia truly was a pure first step for film makers to create a story around the controversial subject of AIDS and equality within the gay community.

#2 - Amistad

Dir: Steven Spielberg

What Amistad (1997) showed the viewer is that slavery in the 19th century was seen as a matter of laws in relation to ownership and property. Steven Spielberg's "Amistad" does not centre its story on slavery per se, but about whether a group of Africans who have murdered their captors, were born slaves (thus making them guilty of murder) or whether they were illegally obtained from Africa. For the second time in this article Matthew McConaughey plays a lawyer, but this time he specialises in property law. Much like a theme in Philadelphia, McConaughey starts to see his clients as human beings and not something he can personally benefit from. The film itself is clever and similar to another one of Spielberg's film, "Schindler's List". Both films don't try to shove the fact that slavery and the Holocaust were undeniably evil acts of human history. Instead, it tries to tell the story of good men trying to work realistically within a systematic machine of evil. What the film does is end brilliantly. Without giving too much away, ex-President John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) eventually has to take the helm of defending the Africans led by Cinque (Djimon Hounsou) and performs a magnificent 11 minute solo-speech which wows the courtroom. Although JQ Adams wins, considering the history of worldwide slavery, it really is a hollow victory.

#1 - Sleepers

Dir: Barry Levinson

"Sleepers" (1996) begins with, "This is a true story about friendship that runs deeper than blood". In fact it isn't based on a true story, but after watching "Sleepers", I realised that maybe it's not based on a specific story, but concentrates on universal child abuse, the main theme of the film, which happens behind closed doors everyday. The story is one of four friends who grow up in the rough, but protective neighbourhood of Hell's Kitchen, New York in the mid-60's. Eventually they end up in reformatory after they are found guilty of negligent behaviour and crush a man accidentally with a hotdog wagon. They are then recipients of all magnitudes of abuse at the hands of the reformatory lead guard, Nokes (Kevin Bacon). The film fast forwards to 1981 and two of the boys are now gang members. They spot Nokes in a bar and seek revenge on the years of abuse by gunning him down. The film then centres on the court hearing to which the assistant DA, Michael (Brad Pitt) and Shakes (Jason Patric) create a scheme to help their friends, whose case against them is a strong one. Michael and Shakes were also abused and share the pain and understand the motive behind the killing. So as a result, Michael deliberately plays the prosecutor in order to secretly obstruct the outcome. The film is littered with big stars such as Dustin Hoffman playing an alcoholic defense lawyer and Robert De Niro as a priest, who is the moral compass for the boys. Casting Brad Pitt and Jason Patric as the two main protagonists is a bold one because are we the audience suppose to believe these two are former West Side Boys from the mean streets? Upon further analysis though, by casting the main roles with stars, it distracts the audience away from the lesser known defendants (Billy Crudup & Ron Eldard). The film gives off an unreasonable weighing that rape of young boys outweighs murder, but that's what makes "Sleepers" great, it does persuade the audience that under certain circumstances murder is justified, a notion present in "A Time To Kill (see #5). What should be asked then is that if the young boys were beaten instead of sexually assaulted, then would the film have the same outcome? Is the fact that the boys were homosexually raped an underlying factor? And if so, then is homophobia itself used as being negative to justify morality? After watching "Sleepers" these questions were etched in the back of mind and for that, "Sleepers" deserves the #1 spot on this list, because it left me thinking, which in my opinion, any good film does.