Review: Nimona the Movie

The details may differ but the vibes are immaculate in this remake of a great comic into an equally great - if somewhat changed - film.

I loved Nimona the comic. Adored it. And I'm one of those people who's never quite satisfied when movies remake a story from another source, because they're never... quite right. They get the details wrong, the characters don't look like I imagine them, the story gets changed, and through some alchemy of all these minor issues, the whole thing just feels... off. And in having those minor issues, Nimona is no different to all the rest - you can't remake a book or a comic scene for scene into a film, after all. It just doesn't work like that.

And yet, somehow, I don't care.

Comic-Ballister

If you're not familiar with the comic, Nimona by ND Stevenson is the story of Lord Ballister, rogue knight, wanted by the authorities for his crimes, and Nimona, a teenage girl with great hair and a thirst for chaos, who shows up one day wanting to be his sidekick for his evil schemes. Except... she's not just a teenage girl, as becomes rapidly apparent. So it's a story of finding out who Nimona truly is and what she wants, as well as Ballister's own story, his relationship to the kingdom and the authority figures who brand him the villain and, perhaps, a little bit of heroics.

Vs Film-Ballister

Is this the story told in the film? Yes. Well. More or less. Have they changed the backstory to condense it? Yes, absolutely. Does this make some quite fundamental structural changes to the story? Of course. Does movie-Ballister look somewhat different to how I pictured him from his comic version? Yes (he's much squishier). Do they cut down the time building the relationship between him and Nimona, so we see the escalation of trust between them at lightning speed? Yup.  All these differences are absolutely there, on screen, noticeable from the first moment of watching but at no point did I feel like they mattered, because they got the vibes right. It felt right. And that counts for a hell of a lot.

But that's not all it's got going for it.

Even if you've never read the comic, never had the slightest idea what it was even about, I think Nimona, purely as a film, is an absolute winner. At its core, it's cute, it's fun, it's got a great heart, it's genuinely funny, and it knows how to tell a story, whole and complete, in under two hours, a feat I think a great deal of the film industry could learn much from. They made the very good decision to step entirely away from remaking the comic panel by panel, or even spiritually anything like that, and instead asked - what is the core of this story? How does it feel? What do the readers get out of it, by the end? And chose to use the same characters, the same setting and the same theme to try to get the readers to that same end point while fully committing to their medium.

One of the key parts of that success for me is the absolutely spot-on casting. The voice actors are all perfect, and sell their roles emotionally from the get go. Obviously Nimona's voice - Chloë Grace Moretz - is front and centre on this, with in many ways to hardest, widest ranging character to sell. Nimona rattles dramatically between ennui, adorableness, chaos and somewhat alarming anger, and that's a lot to cram in, especially when those points come extremely close to each other with intense swings in between. Nimona is, quite simply, A Lot. But Moretz absolutely has the range to cover it. But the secondary characters shine nearly as much - Riz Ahmed's Ballister is softer, younger, more vulnerable and unsure than his comic equivalent, but manages just as much warmth to his outcast sidekick, and his comedic confusion is sold well without ever leaving him hapless. Eugene Lee Yang's Goldenloin was the big surprise for me - I know of him not so much as a voice actor but as part of a comedy youtube collective The Try Guys - and as a character occupying the middle ground between the forces of the kingdom and our protagonists, his role could well have been a tricky one to manage. But there's no sense in his performance that he's not cut out for the role, and I really loved the warmth he brought to Goldenloin, and to his relationship with Ballister.

There's also the graphics - Nimona is a visually distinctive film (differently but no less than the comic) - and these are likewise handled brilliantly. The world of the story is one of both high-tech future, with flying bikes and bright lights, and one of knightly nostalgia, and the combination of those two manages a genuine cohesion that gives the world its distinctive, constant vibe. There are little nods in many of the techiest parts back to the faux-medieval, especially with knights on somewhat horse-reminiscent flying quad-bikes and the laser-swords, that make the whole thing feel thought out and joined together, rather than a horrible mishmash, even when some parts of the worldbuilding are consciously played for jokes.

Like much of the successful parts of the film, in fact, the success here is in leaning in. Nimona was never going to be a success in moderation. And the filmmakers have embraced that and committed to everything at full tilt. There's a visible joy in the way Nimona herself moves - especially through her shapeshifting and fight-scenes, and how the two are seamlessly synthesised - and the animation of character interactions and drama that speaks to a deep core thesis on what they want the film to feel like that thoroughly underpins every part of the story. Which is exactly what I mean when I say that the vibes are immaculate - the film is wildly, determinedly itself at every moment, and in every still, every gif, you see some little glimmer of the whole, because it never stops being itself, even in the smallest, silliest details. It inhabits itself completely.

That being said, there are some flaws. Because it is such a short film, and one that draws from a much longer source, it has a brevity that sometimes borders on curtness, especially when it comes to the development of relationships between characters, and their motivations. Some of this it sidesteps by how it chooses to frame the story - we get Ballister and Goldenloin right at the start as a framework through which to view the rest of the story, rather than something to build towards, which necessarily fast-tracks Goldenloin into "balanced character" rather than the dickhead he seems at the start of the comic - but some of it is just unavoidable. Critically - Ballister and Nimona trusting one another. It happens fast because it has to, for the story the film needs to tell in the time it clearly wants to tell it. And I can see an argument for how expanding the film to give the relationships more breathing space might have been beneficial. It would certainly give more time for Nimona to be the spikier, more chaotic self she is in the comics, with a shell that takes longer for Ballister to break through, to find the emotions at the squishy centre. But that extension would come with a sacrifice to the rapidfire energy of the story, and truthfully, while the flaw is there, while they do rush... I have to admit I didn't care.

Likewise, if you're here looking for a Ballister who fully embraces his villainhood, and his role in opposition to the forces of order in his society? Ehhhh you're not going to get that either, and that is something of shame.

In my opinion, the story gives you enough, there's enough humour and drama and fun that when it comes down to it, you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and suspend your disbelief for the things that need brushing under the carpet. There aren't a lot of them, and it never demands too much, but they do exist. It's a film that might suffer under nitpicking, but equally one that's brought its own, different joy to the table to pay for that exchange.

Ultimately, for me, it felt like one of those perfect-for-kids movies that adults can enjoy if they're willing to go in in the right frame of mind. At its heart, it understands and conveys the message of the comic, while making itself into something also wholly new. It's funny, it's sweet, it's different, and it's full of characters you want to watch and know more about, in an adventure that chooses a somewhat different take than many others. It succeeds at what it does by choosing its line and leaning in incredibly hard on it, by having that entirely coherent identity as something unique. So I had an absolute blast watching it, and will definitely come back again when I need a pick-me-up.

--

The Math

Highlights: maintains the soul of the original while adapting to a new medium, top notch voice acting, laugh out loud moments

Nerd Coefficient: 8/10

POSTED BY: Roseanna Pendlebury, the humble servant of a very loud cat. @chloroform_tea

DYSTOPIAN VISIONS: V for Vendetta

Dossier: V for Vendetta

Filetype: Graphic Novel & Film

File Under: Statist Dystopia

Executive Summary: In the near future, Britain is a neo-fascist state.  A shadowy freedom fighter called only V emerges and plots to overthrow the government, with the help of a young woman named Evey.

Dystopian Visions: V for Vendetta checks a lot of dystopian boxes- the government is 100% neo-fascist, replete with every -phobia you care to know, state monitoring, control via surveillance as well as deputized 'fingermen', ordinary thugs put in positions of state police.

Utopian Undercurrents: The main theme of V for Vendetta is the power which ideas have. V, as a person, in fact assumes the identity of an *idea* not just that of a person. His death becomes immaterial, as others have adopted his ideal and/or have the courage to stand up for it. For as much as Alan Moore has said he hates the film adaptation, the last few scenes (which I would love to spoil here and ramble about, even though you have probably seen it) are incredibly powerful and moving (as is the conclusion of the graphic novel).

Level of Hell: Seven. Things are bad, to be sure. Really bad, in point of fact. But if you keep your head down, you can be okay. But that's sort of the point.

Legacy: Personally, I hold both the printed and film versions in very high regard. Its legacy seems to have fallen by the wayside, in the shadow of everything else Moore has done and the fact the the Wachowski's haven't made a good movie since... this one. It is, however, quite relevant today and worthy of a re-read and/or watch.

In Retrospect: V for Vendetta ages very well, possibly being even better with age. The art is wonderfully bleak, matching the tone and environment, and the writing plays with the themes of the story in deep and inventive ways (V's initial monologue to Evey being the most well-known example, but far from the best). Moore has a fantastic introduction the graphic novel, which, while outside of the story proper, holds true today.


Analytics

For its time: 5/5
Read today: 5/5.
Oppressometer Readout: 10/10.

Snyderisms

Do you remember Iron Man? The first one? When we were all "Robert Downey Jr is still alive? Will he stay sober on set? Yeah, right, a good Marvel movie lololol." That turned out okay, didn't it?

Well, the DC Cinematic Universe, which had the MCU template to go off of, is off to something of less than a stellar start. Three entries in, and DC fanboys are trying to shut down Rotten Tomatoes (which is just an aggregator, you idiots) because all three are getting universally low reviews. There are certainly manifold reasons for this, but I want to talk about the biggest one (in my semi-humble opinion). It has to do with Zack Snyder, and while I fully realize that a ton of blame can and should be placed at WB and DC's door, I want to focus on where Snyder fails in basically all his films, because it has essentially crippled the DCU.

Simply put, Zack Snyder does not understand subtext. What he does do is make a very pretty movie that looks exactly like his source material brought to life.

I was equal parts excited and apprehensive, as I'm sure many were, about an adaptation of Watchmen. Which, as the excellent Honest Trailer points out, is an incredibly divisive film. It is, in my opinion, a beautiful film, with some excellent touches, such as the soundtrack. It lifts scenes directly from the comic. In fact, Snyder carried a copy of Watchmen with him at all times on set. This gave me loads of confidence in what he was doing. So why is it not beloved, when it adapted one of the best stories of all time?

Because Zack Snyder does not understand subtext. Watchmen is a deep, complex story that is about a lot more than just superheroes, while also being completely satirical. None of that made it into the film. It was pretty, sure, and was a decent action romp- but that's not going to cut it when you're adapting the best graphic novel of all time.

300 is garbage, so we're not even going to talk about that. I don't think I could have been more disappointed with a movie than I was with Sucker Punch- the previews looked amazing, the action, the depth of... the... story... was like jumping off a high dive into a kiddie pool. It had no depth whatsoever. Nothing about trauma, about rape culture, any actual exploration of the human condition. Even the actual action in the movie didn't live up to the glory the trailer presented.

Then comes the ostensible beginning of the DCU, Man of Steel, which was certainly better than Superman Returns by virtue of not being completely boring. Except...

I don't even like Superman all that much, but woof. I though he stood for 'truth, justice, and the American way', although, in fairness, the way America is these days, murder *is* the American way. But Supes offing his nemesis is not exactly what he's known for. There might be in-universe reasons for it (Zod *was* about to torch a family), but it's still out there. Add in the fact that Batman- whose express edict is to not kill- murders with abandon.

Which, hey, I don't care. I'm with Punisher, if we scoot over to the MCU for a bit. Daredevil and Batman are half-measures when it comes to stopping these baddies. Them dying isn't such a bad thing- in my opinion.

But it's not my opinion that counts. The idea behind Batman and Superman is that they represent the best in humanity, and no one has accused me of being that. Batman and Superman are supposed to have the ability to be forces for good without taking lives.

This is what made Nolan's Batman trilogy so good (well, 2/3rds good. DKR sucked) - he truly understood the character, not only of Batman, but also of Gordon, Dent and the Joker, and The Dark Knight was an exploration of that- not just a bunch of action set pieces and big moments. There is tremendous depth to Ledger's Joker, and this slow momentum building to the big moments. Him leaning out the window of the captured police cruiser, his plan in motion, having been executed to perfection and followed by the unwitting pawns of Batman and the police force, epitomizes the character.

Except, it doesn't, because he is gleefully mad and glad to let Batman kill him, taunting him to 'hit me', just to get Batman to break his code. That is the Joker- and that is Batman. The Snyder-verse Batman has no such conflict. Killing the Joker would be a matter of course, since he has no problem killing criminals. One of the central conflicts of the character just isn't there. It's what makes Moore's admittedly flawed Killing Joke so powerful- Batman finally crosses the line, so does the Joker win? That's a question, for as much as I enjoy Affleck's Batman and Leto's Joker, that will never- can never- be addressed in this universe, simply because it is not a question.

In the end, what is wrong with these films and Snyder's directing and influence is not the dour tone, or even the fact that the so-called Justice League is fine killing people out of hand, it is that there is nothing beneath, no depth to them, their motivations or their conflicts. A battle between these two powerful beings is undone by a name. It's simplistic and boring. The films leap from big moment to big moment, with nothing between with lower stakes- when every moment is big, none of them are.

This causes a ripple effect even to the films he has no hand in. Look at Suicide Squad. I think, like BvS, the movie we got in theaters is not the movie we were supposed to see. There are painfully obvious reshoots, done to add humor because BvS was too dark. Guess what, WB? Suicide Squad should have been dark. And guess who the executive producer of Suicide Squad was? YUP. So Snyder reacts to the perception that BvS wasn't light enough, and assumes that making Suicide Squad funnier will be the solution - not actually exploring what makes bad guys bad, or giving them anything, like, say, character development.

DC is stumbling out of the gate, hard, and it's not because the movies aren't funny, or pretty, or lack action. It's because they lack depth.

-DESR

Review: Suicide Squad

Bad heroes, or just bad?

For all my cynicism around movies, blockbusters and shared universes, to say nothing about outright negativity when it comes to Zack Snyder directing anything beyond a hair spray commercial, I have been stupidly excited for Suicide Squad. The tale of a group of bad guys pressed into service by an even worse person, to do... something. It doesn't really matter, because we're here to see the WORST. HEROES. EVER.

And boy oh boy, do they deliver. Really, it starts and ends with Jared Leto's Joker. His antics are far and away the highlight. His antics included sending gifts to other Squad ('SKWAD') members, including, but not limited to:

• Live rats
• Dead pigs
• Bullets
• Sex toys
• Pornography

Classic Joker! This lead Viola Davis to threaten to pepper spray him if he came near her, which doesn't seem like the kind of thing the Clown Prince of Crime would take kindly to, but maybe it earned her some grudging respect.

You have to admire the Squad's ('SKWADZ') commitment to who they are- bad, hard criminals. You have Harley able to hold her breath for five full minutes, or Killer Crock listening to recordings of other cannibals in order to preserve his craving for human flesh. It's truly unsettling to see, and one of the many ways Suicide Squad stands out.

The villain, in a story about villains really stands out: Rarely will you find one more menacing or twisted than David Ayer. Keeping the Squad ('SKWAD') imprisoned for months, and conducting twisted experiments on them is truly grotesque. It started as soon as they were in his thrall- forced into a 'therapy' session, where they where tricked into revealing childhood trauma, phobias and their deepest insecurities. These were then used against them as 'motivation' later. Truly devious.

He pulled some very standard villain stuff, as well- forcing the Squad ('SKWAD') to fight each other, even inflicting a weird Stockholm syndrome on them, to where that whole SKWAD thing got tattooed on each other, probably because they had all bonded over surviving such trauma. Everyone, except Deadshot, anyway, but he barely appears at all except to comment on how he doesn't hate the Joker (he does) and to comment on how horny the rest of the Squad ('SKWAD') is (this is probably true). Deadshot is pretty lame, is what I am saying.

In his greatest act of villainy, though, Ayer made a whole movie using the members of the suicide squad, and it was basically on par with the other current DC movies. For as fascinating as the Suicide Squad is, and what a great villain Ayer is, you would have thought they'd make a better movie.

The Math:

Baseline: 5/10

Bonuses:
+5 for having some of the best stories around the making of a movie ever

Penalties:
-5 for those stories being way better than the actual movie

Conclusion: 5/10 problematic, but has redeeming qualities