Today's Review: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

It's been a while, but I finally wrote another review for FilmTotaal. And this time, for a particularly big blockbuster movie, my first for this movie site:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - recensie

FilmTotaal is the biggest movie website in the Netherlands (no, really!), and in its case, users actually respond to critics' reviews. Often not in the most gentle manner, as there's quite a few trolls and/or generally loudmouth, obnoxious people haunting the site. Reviewers posting their opinion of overhyped blockbuster films like this one usually know they can expect to be firmly hated upon. However, for BvS, I gotta say there's only a few posts illustrating strong disagreement - to put it mildly - with what I wrote about the film. In fact, it seems the majority of users agrees with me: BvS is rather a disappointment. Not entirely bad (it still looks great and there's some good performances and lovely action, you know), but definitely a letdown.

Maybe the cause of its shortcomings is its director, Zack Snyder. He's been known to favour heavy topics surrounding flawed, traumatized characters living in unpleasant worlds filled with violent death. Even though he usually flavours said realms with a visually appealing, grandiose style of filming and fabulous artistry and dressing. Man of Steel, the movie to kick off this new DC Cinematic Universe which is meant to deliver some heavy competition at Marvel's doorstep, fit that bill perfectly, making the generally colorful and optimistic Superman a brooding alien refugee given near omnipotent power over his new neighbours, the human race. I liked Man of Steel. It made this God like character that much more identifiable by focusing on his lacks rather than his strengths. In its many philosophical moments, Man of Steel felt less like a superhero movie and more like a character study of a God living among man and contemplating his relationship with those who in all respects are so obviously inferior to him. Of course, that relationship is still explored in BvS, as the world now needs to cope with the existence of this powerful presence, a potential saviour to man. However, another type of hero has already been active for decades, it turns out.

For in BvS, the DC universe is supposed to be up and running for decades already. No starting from scratch here, as was the case for Marvel. For every character introduced, there is a long backstory that is teased, which in many cases frustrates more than it intrigues. Ben Affleck's Batman has been fighting crime for twenty years, and it has only made him darker. Crime has not been reduced, while his war on bad guys preying on the everyman has cost him dearly. No wonder he's grown so angry he's not averse to maiming and even killing criminals left and right. The Batman we've grown accustomed to was never a true killer, but Snyder's Caped Crusader has no such moral qualms anymore. And now there's this all powerful extraterrestrial policing the planet. A being Batman holds responsible for the invasion that laid waste to Metropolis and cost him employees and real estate. Affleck does a fine job portraying the sombre, disillusioned vigilante, but it cannot be denied that his explicit aim of killing Superman, who has since amply demonstrated he's on the side of justice, just feels wholly unjustified.

Meanwhile, as if the lethal rivalry between both tormented good guys was't enough to fill a two hour movie, Snyder introduces a younger version of classic villain Lex Luthor to pester them both. This evil tycoon, too, is haunted by a trauma involving his father, which is not enough to fully explain his demonic machinations in this film. What's more, Jesse Eisenberg's performance in the role is devoid of the 'wow' factor we would have hoped for. Applying a typical neurotic hyperactivity, Eisenberg is basically playing a nefarious version of his own Mark Zuckerberg. It doesn't make for a convincing baddie. Nor does Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman leave a lasting impression, which is also due to a lack of screen time (though 151 minutes certainly makes for a long piece already). Again, a shady past is implied but not explored. And so she leaves us confused by her transformation from uncaring socialite to warrior princess fighting for good.

Of course, with a subtitle like 'Dawn of Justice', adding more spice to your duo of core characters for a broader context is expected. So we also get this evil genius and a strong female heroine. But wait, says BvS, there's much more yet. A number of other super heroes is teased. But for ow, we simply cannot care. Worse, the still fairly investing story line of the titular protagonists is hindered by awkward attempts to set up bigger things to come, including an Apocalyptic nightmare of Batman wherein he's plagued by visions of a ruined world ruled by Superman (including insect warriors, I kid you not). Succeeded by a scene in which that same Batman is confronted with a temporal vortex and a warning from the future to stop someone doing something, totally out of the blue. Pointless material, as we already knew Batman was out for Superman's blood and this doesn't motivate him any more. Despite all the useless interruptions provided by DC's self-advertisement for coming attractions (to which we simply are not attracted), it's amazing we still at least care about the two iconic superheroes battling each other.

And their fight proves quite spectacular. Brutal, despite a lack of blood (PG-13 rating and all). But oh so dark and serious. Even Nolan's Dark Knight films, also not particularly light, optimistic fare, never lost sight of the need for a bit of humour and witticism. But Snyder tells such a gritty tale, there's simply no space left for those elements. Unfortunately, after the epic Batman/Superman throwdown, he however feels there is space left for another half an hour of three good guys battling an ugly digital monster. But this climax never feels near as climactic as the fight we expected to see and at least felt somewhat gratifying. As is usual for his approach, Snyder goes over the top much further than we would like him to have gone. Maybe he's not fully to blame for BvS' many shortcomings, a fair bit of it can likely be chalked up to DC interference for setting up the future. But that future does involve Snyder to a great extent, as he's already working on Justice League. We better hope he takes the failures of BvS to heart and lightens up a bit. There's gotta be more to the DC universe than angry heroes beating each other up...

Today's News aplenty

Guess who's behind on commenting on his own posted bits of news this weekend?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156239/nieuwe_batman_mogelijk_in_2019

It would have made more sense to give a major character his own solo debut before throwing him in the mix with others, as Marvel did so successfully on The Avengers. However, Warner/DC are in a tremendous hurry. The superhero movie fad has been going on for over a decade now, the novelty will wear off and audiences will grow tired of all these superheroes saving the day ad nauseam soon. It's not unlikely we have already witnessed the height of the superhero silver screen craze by now. However, Marvel has shown its rivals the light and the financial rewards to be reaped, so a competing über-superhero blockbuster from that other major comic book publisher is in short order. And considering the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, plus the popularity of the Batman character in general for the last 70 years, it's safe to say audiences know the Caped Crusader well enough not to be in need of an origin story once again. Batman may really not need another introduction for a change. Let him meet Superman first and see how that works out for the both of them, and worry about retelling this particular take on the character later on. Of course, it's likely his background will be touched upon in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, though probably not in so much detail. I'm sure it can be skipped for a film or two, as Justice League too is scheduled to beat The Batman, as is the solo film's dull working title, to theaters. It may actually be good for the character's air of mystique to keep his origins in the dark for a while longer than anticipated by the general audience. And since the Dark Knight trilogy turned out so well, we can still enjoy it to the fullest for a few more years before the mantle is passed to another director, another actor and another universe for Bats to play in.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156258/rian_johnson_regisseur_star_wars_episode_viii

The hunt for talented young directors to shape Disney's Star Wars universe continues! Not that I consider J.J. Abrams either young (age: 48) or talented (mucking up Lost, sacking Star Trek). But his co-directors Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and Josh Trank (Chronicle) sure fit that description. And Rian Johnson does too. His episodes of Breaking Bad were amongst the best of the entire series' run and proves he understands compelling characters and drama just fine, while Looper was simply a good watch (not flawless, but still a noteworthy Sci-Fi flick). Apparently Disney thinks the world of him, as he's not only directing Episode VIII, but also writing both that one and its successor, Episode IX. I bet there's a juicy, shocking cliffhanger involved that warrants the involvement of the same writer to make things run more smoothly from a plot point of view. So that makes five(!) Star Wars films currently being prepped, the greatest activity ever on the franchise. How much anticipation can the fans survive? And how much harder will the blow to them be if these films do not live up to the hype which is rapidly reaching insane levels? As all major film studios are, Disney is unmistakably in a hurry to capitalize on what it has. I hope it works out for everybody, studio and devotees alike. Fortunately, after the disappointment Star Wars' own creative father wrought on the franchise in the previous decade, most fans will know not to live in hope to much. But ever more of such promising names attached, the chances continue to rise we will be getting at least one good Star Wars movie in the near future.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156259/laatste_trailer_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_online

As for Planet of the Apes, that franchise already experienced a successful reboot with Rise of the PotA. So far the trailers indicate the level of quality is maintained for its successor, Dawn of the PotA. Thanks to this latest trailer I'm even more stoked for this movie than I already was. Okay, so the image of a chimp riding a horse while firing twin guns is a bit on the side of campy excess, all else seems solid enough. You've got intriguing characters, a fascinating post-apocalyptic state of affairs, excellent visual effects and some damn fine actors (Andy Serkis! Gary Oldman!) to make it all come alive. And things are not too black and white, as there's villains and heroes on both sides and there's something to be said for everybody's motivations. Of course we root for the formerly oppressed apes, but thanks to the virus that wiped out most of humanity, the stakes have been balanced to such an extent that the humans are not much beter off, which makes them sympathetic underdogs in a clever role reversal. There's room for that gray area between man and beast to be explored, the trailer suggests, even though much of the movie obviously consists of acts of violence committed by both parties. And unlike in the original movies, the lines between the three species of apes - chimpanzee, orang-utan and gorilla, if you recall - are not so clearly delineated as before, so there is opportunity to make use of those differences too. It's not as simple as chimps good, gorillas bad, as in the Seventies. Nor is it apes good, humans bad, as was the case for most of the previous movie. As the trailer shows, and hopefully the film itself will too, everybody is still all too human and peace is our only option for mutual survival.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156264/sinister_regisseur_schrijft_outer_limits

Derrickson sure is getting busy lately. He still has to finish another horror flick, he's busy prepping Doctor Strange for Marvel, and now he's tackling The Outer Limits inbetween. I hope he does it justice, as his remake of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still didn't prove him to be a science fiction genius. The choice to base an entire movie off a single episode also is no cause for optimism, especially if it's a feeble one (no offense to Harlan Ellison). I question the choice to adapt this TV-show to the big screen, since the latter just doesn't fit its format all too well. The same can be said for its friendly competitor, The Twilight Zone. Anthologies are beter served in weekly succession on the small screen where viewers can grasp the concepts more easily than they can if they encounter them in theaters only every three years. After all, if a movie proves to be received well by its audience, it will expect a direct sequel in terms of story, rather than an entirely different story altogether. Imagine if I, Robot was the first Outer Limits movie and the sequel wouldn't deal with robots at all: would that have sat well with spectators? It just so happens that that particular tale was first used in the original TV series before Will Smith made it his own star vehicle in 2004. If there was no Will Smith in its successor, people might have been ended up disappointed. The only other workable solution is to fit multiple short stories into a single movie, as done in the Eighties' Twilight Zone movie, not to great effects despite the involvement of several notable directors for each segment (including Steven Spielberg). To me, the silver screen just doesn't seem to be suited to unrelated short stories packaged under the same title. Theatrical limits are just a little too far beyond the outer limits the show handles.

Movies gone by: the continuation of the continuation

It took a bit longer than I had hoped for, but as you might recall a few weeks back I started listing and briefly critiquing all the movies I had seen while my PC was undergoing repairs. Basically all the films I had wanted to review on my blog in the past three months but couldn't due to lack of online access are now shortly described here so my avid readers will know what flicks I failed to report on and what gems (or less gemmy movies) they might have missed. Today: part three. It won't be the last part, but hopefully the end is in sight and I can soon get back to posting movie reviews the regular way; however, I will try to write less elaborate pieces, since it has been brought to my attention that few people these days bother to read a 2,000 word review when they got alternative options that would save them a lot of time (but would also provide them with less knowledge). We'll see how things go in the future, but for now, here's a few more movies I had the pleasure (or not so much) of watching recently.

Like Someone in Love: **/*****

Unusual French/Japanese co-production by Iranian born filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami, dealing with a young prosititute in Tokyo who hooks up with an old man for a few days who provides her with a place to stay and transportation to school. When the senior meets the girl's boyfriend, who strongly intends to marry her but has financial predicaments of his own, he takes the elderly man for her grandfather, a role he does not deny, with dire consequences. Or so we are left to assume, since the whole film is working towards a seemingly violent confrontation between the deceived boyfriend and his girl and her would-be benefactor. However, Kiarostami does not bother to gives us a proper ending, thus making the audience emotionally invest in characters without rewarding us with a proper send-off. And it was already a tough job getting us invested in them, considering the slow pace and hardly existing montage that makes it hard to stay involved and ultimately makes for a rather dull film that cuts away when things would have gotten interesting. However, it must be said that due to its calm overall rhythm the abrupt ending (of the film that is, not of the series of events it portrays) is that much more disturbing and risqué. But that's not enough to make for a satisfactory viewing experience: when things finally start to get interesting, the movie is over.

NO: ****/*****

Academy Award nominated Chilean film about the opposition's attempts to get the people of Chile to vote dictator Pinochet out of office in the 1988 referendum. Sly advertising agent René (Gael Garcia Bernal) construes an unusual 'NO' campaign that, instead of underscoring all the terrible things that are wrong with the dictatorship, shows everything that's fun about democracy under the motto 'democracy is happiness'. René's opportunist boss however works for the 'YES' front, trying to undo his employee's attempts at creating a persuasive campaign via ruthless intimidation. However, his despicable way of working against the opposition by making René's ads look stupid and uninformed backfires on him and the regime. However, René and his team still have to deal with agressive intimidations by the dictatorship's sinister agents, making for an ever more oppressive and stressful working environment to change the country for the better. Making excellent use of a nostalgic eighties video look, complete with small screen television frame format and lousy picture quality, this movie at first feels like an old documentary, but looks can be deceiving, since it ultimately proves to be an ingenious mix between political satire and suspense. Interestingly enough, despite making us root for the small band of political activists taking a stand against tyranny, the film does have the audacity in the end to ask whether life in Chile has improved that much, now being swamped in typical capitalist omnipresent advertising and routine product placement, making for a dull life for the older René.

Skyfall: ****/*****

There's little to add to everything that has already been said about this film, other than my own opinion which somewhat predictably follows the majority of positive attitudes towards this celebration of 50 years of 007. Skyfall witnesses James Bond (23^rd movie, third starring Daniel Craig as the dashing British secret agent) seemingly meeting an untimely demise due to friendly fire, after which MI6 gets attacked in general and M (Dame Judi Dench) in particular by a shadow from her past. Fortunately, 007 proves to be still alive and soon moves against the shady figure (a wonderfully villainous Javier Bardem) who shares quite a few traits with himself, making for an increasingly small scale, deeply personal climactic struggle between both sides, with tragic results. Directed by Sam Mendes, this is one of the less action oriented Bond flicks, opting for character drama instead, fleshing out the Bond character and his emotional connection with his boss. Both revisiting and rewriting 50 years of Bond history, the movie successfully walks a fine line between the more serious attitude of the Craig films and the funkier take on the character from days past, without ever going too far either way and respecting the characters' journey at all times. Old characters return (Q, Ms. Moneypenny) in new guises, both indicating how much has changed over time and how much remains the same. The film is laced with references to earlier Bond films, but few of them are so in-your-face they threaten to subvert the film's pacing. If you're looking for action only, you might end up disappointed since the high adrenaline chase scene that opens the movie is never surpassed later on, but the emotional climax which includes the death of a major character and the set-up for many more Bonds to come makes it all worthwhile. If only all movie franchises would turn 50 this gracefully...

Argo: ****/*****

Best Picture winner of 2012, finally re-affirming Ben Affleck's position as a top Hollywood player, even as an actor (though he also directed and produced this film). An intriguing and surprisingly funny film, despite its heavy and, in some respects, sensitive topic, Argo chronicles the 1980 attempt by the CIA to extract American diplomatic personnel caught in the crossfires of the Iranian revolution. Their solution: pretend like we're making a Sci-Fi flick like Star Wars and we're scouting for suitable desert locations. Surprisingly, it worked. However, the film has gotten much criticism by taking some creative license with actual historical events (as such Hollywood films always do), among them the diminished role of the Canadian embassy in this shadow play. Nevertheless, it stands tall as a slick political thriller with plenty of moments of utter absurdity to relieve the excessive tension at times and also applying a delightful eighties' feel to the whole. For science fiction aficionados it's particularly fascinating stuff, giving us a glimpse of an epic fantasy flick that sadly never materialized, simply because it was all a ruse. Wouldn't it be nice if Affleck decided to finish what the CIA started and make an actual Argo after all? Wishful thinking, since his response would more than likely be 'Argo fuck yourselves'. Too bad...

Daredevil

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

One of the poorest of Marvel Comics adaptations, though still an entertaining action flick. As a kid, Matt Murdock comes into contact with toxic waste that blinds him for life but heightens all his other senses, including his need for justice. When his father is murdered by the mob, he makes it his life's cause to fight crime, by day as a lawyer, by night as the vigilante Daredevil who prowls the streets of New York in a red leather suit and beats up bad guys. This gets him on the radar of mob boss Kingpin (the huge Michael Clarke Duncan (R.I.P. 2012) is perfectly suited for the part, except the tone of his skin is not in sync with the original comic book character, but with such a neat actor, who cares?) and his crazed assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell) who is ordered to give the Devil his due. Poor Matt also has to deal with the beautiful but deadly Elektra Natchios, a girl he has fallen in love with but who believes his alter ego to be her father's killer. Plenty of interesting characters and an abundance of solid action scenes cannot fully make up for the pale shadow this movie grew to be compared to Marvel franchises like Spider-Man or X-Men at that time. Most of the blame can be assigned to Ben Affleck, who just does a terrible job at making his character a compellingly blind guy tortured by remorse and anger over his father's demise and driven by a relentless need to avenge crime. Similarly, the romance with Elektra feels contrived and is never exposed as much as it needs to be to come over as believable or something the audience needs to care about, despite the dire consequences in store for this supposed passion. At least Kingpin feels like a true menace, while Bullseye is just a delightful amoral and wicked person Farrell plays with apparent appropriate enthusiasm. The Director's Cut, running a good half hour longer than its theatrical counterpart, is the preferred version to watch, adding more depth to the characters and a few more subplots to flesh out the whole, but it cannot compensate for Affleck's feeble performance. Marvel movies hit their lowest ebb with Daredevil's spin-off flick Elektra (2005), which was released as a direct-to-DVD feature in many territories and destroyed the femme fatale character even more eagerly. Director Johnson was responsible for a second disappointing Marvel adaptation with Ghost Rider in 2007.

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Michael Clarke Duncan

Directed by Mark Steven Johnson

USA: 20^th Century Fox, 2003

Armageddon

Rating: **/*****, or 4/10

Overly noisy and bombastic action spectacle featuring the imminent demise of our planet by a giant asteroid, so an unlikely group of oil drillers is send into space to drill a hole in this threat and plant a nuclear bomb into it so it can be blown up in space before it kills us all. Though the movie features a deliciously good cast and plenty of action, its at times completely asinine plot, cheesy jokes, focus on loud explosions and abundance of annoying moments of blatant American patriottism clearly betray this film to be yet another obnoxious Michael Bay product, dragging on for 150 minutes from one silly catastrophe to another until we simply cannot care about the characters' plight any more. Too bad, since the film starts out pretty good with a convincing and spectacular action scene of small meteorites hitting landmarks around the globe. After that, the movie only goes progressively downhill, despite the solid score and the many fine actors involved.

Starring: Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Steve Buscemi

Directed by Michael Bay

USA: Touchstone Pictures, 1998