Thursday, March 31, 2016

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Film Review


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is such an all-encompassing, mind-numbing, incoherent mess, I don’t even know where to begin. It fundamentally misunderstands its source material and the concept of good filmmaking in general. I couldn’t tell you why Batman and Superman were fighting; neither of them seemed to care about anything or anyone except themselves. If you were to remove the ‘v’ from ‘BvS,’ you’d get an abbreviation that perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching it. By the time its 2.5-hour runtime had concluded, I felt pummeled, disturbed and deeply depressed.

The title ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ is somewhat misleading. Not only does the long-anticipated fight between these two icons only last for about ten minutes total, there is no ‘Dawn’ to be found. Most of the film’s events take place in the blackest of rainy nights. The closest we get to actual, genuine sunlight is an overcast sky with a mere hint of blue poking through. The color scheme is consistently gray and that, combined with the film’s suffocatingly dour tone, makes this one of the single-most dispiriting film-going experiences I’ve ever had.

Narratively speaking…well, let me stop right there because there isn’t much of a narrative to speak of. There’s something resembling a narrative, but it’s so jumbled and messy that labeling it as such does a disservice to the term. Events unfold, but have little to no relation with one another. There’s no connective tissue. Character motivations are muddled or non-existent. (Why did Lex Luthor hate Superman so much besides the fact that Superman is so much hotter?) It’s like the creative team threw a bunch of ideas into a blender, pissed all over them and then flung them on the audience. (Ironically, a jar of piss ends up being one of the film’s plot points. No joke.)

Through the years, director Zack Snyder has made a name for himself crafting visually faithful, thematically inept comic book adaptations. He’s always favored carefully crafted visuals and cinematography over any kind of meaningful, engaging content. Even decent screenplays seem to fall apart once he gets hold of them and siphons them through his slow-mo, action-first/character-second aesthetic. Why Warner Bros. saw fit to entrust the security of such beloved characters to the guy is beyond me. Not only does he reduce Batman to a murderous monster, he seems to have absolutely zero grasp on what makes Superman so great.

The concept of Superman has never meshed well with Snyder’s almost hilariously pessimistic agenda. (A selfless superhero who only wants to help people because it’s the right thing to do? Lame!) It feels like he’s been waiting for his moment to raise the middle finger to anyone who has any kind of love or appreciation for the guy and with Batman v Superman he finally gets the opportunity to do so. This film proves beyond any smidgen of doubt, that Snyder doesn’t only not understand Superman, Snyder flat out HATES him.

There’s this awful moment about halfway through the movie where Superman is chatting with Lois and he basically tells her that he’s a fraud and that people should never have believed in him. Hey, I’m right there with you, buddy. While we’re at it, how ‘bout we stop by the local orphanage and tell all the kids their parents never loved them too?

To be fair, as portrayed in 2013's Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, Superman really doesn’t do anybody any good. But instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to give him a platform to speak for himself or present any kind of point of view on anything (in other words, to be a developed character), Snyder and co. opt instead to have him remain silent, reinforcing the notion that Superman is a selfish prick who only cares about himself.

The filmmakers included the briefest of brief montages to showcase Superman’s rescues. (I guess somebody at the studio begrudgingly admitted they had to show Superman saving somebody.) I’ve been to funerals more upbeat than this dreary sequence. Superman seems like he’d rather be doing anything else. I mean, why should Superman actually want to rescue people? It’s not like that’s what he does or anything, right?

I feel particularly bad for Henry Cavill. He seems talented enough and certainly looks the part. In press interviews, he’s demonstrated the charm and likability that is so essential to the character. For whatever reason, Snyder and the studio have ignored Cavill’s abilities and forced him to wander around looking lost and forlorn. There's no charisma to his performance; he's just going through the motions. And who can blame him, really? When the creative team clearly has nothing but contempt for the character you're portraying, all you can do is collect your paycheck and go home.

BvS hardly fares better when it comes to Batman. Despite Ben Affleck’s noble efforts, he can’t quite overcome the clunky dialogue or lack of nuance. While I understand why Batman would have a personal vendetta against Superman due to the mass destruction he (Superman) caused in Man of Steel, I do not understand in any way why Batman casually murders people left and right with next-to-no regard. When did he decide to cross that line? Snyder and co. never bother to fill us in on the details, nor on any details regarding the character.

As for the rest of the cast, they spend most of their time blending into the mayhem. Gal Gadot is fine as Wonder Woman, though there’s no explanation as to who she is or why she’s in this movie. As portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg, Lex Luthor is a jittery, Jim-Carrey-as-the-Riddler impersonator with no clear motive for his ‘evil’ schemes. Poor Amy Adams as Lois Lane spends most of the film getting rescued by Superman. Lois comes across as a total moron, often flinging herself into idiotic situations without much consideration. Only Jeremy Irons and Laurence Fishburne make it through unscathed in their portrayals of Batman’s butler Alfred and Daily Planet Editor-in-Chief Perry White respectively.

So, without a coherent storyline or characters to invest in, what we’re left with is Angry Murdering Man v The Depressed Sad-Sack, which is nothing more than a 2.5-hour staring contest to determine the grumpiest superhero of all!

Sidenote: there’s also an amazing moment where it looks like they’re about to kiss. God, I would have forgiven every flaw in this movie if they’d just gone for it:


Nothing in BvS merits any kind of recommendation. You’re better off going to your local comic shop and grabbing a copy of ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ and ‘Superman: Birthright.’ I assure you, it’ll be money far better spent and you won't hate your life afterwards.

FINAL RATING: 1/5

Monday, March 14, 2016

10 Cloverfield Lane - Film Review


A fair warning: don’t go into 10 Cloverfield Lane expecting anything resembling a follow-up to its shaky-cam predecessor. They bear little resemblance to one another. Producer J.J. Abrams has done his utmost to temper expectations by referring to this new film as a “spiritual successor," not a direct sequel. Mostly, I think he’s just trying to cover his ass for essentially hijacking an un-related screenplay and slapping it with the Cloverfield brand. It must have seemed like a surefire way to secure some box office dollars and get a nice little payday for himself and the original film’s creative team. Hey, don’t judge. The director of the highest grossing domestic film of all time has gotta pay the bills somehow.

Even though it doesn’t have much to do with the original Cloverfield, you should still make the effort to see 10 Cloverfield Lane. It is a superb thriller and will keep you riveted from its shocking opening scenes to its nail-biting conclusion.

Following a rough car accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes to finds herself in the care of Howard (John Goodman), a quietly terrifying roly-poly of a man. Calling Howard a bit of a nut would be an understatement. He’s extremely paranoid and has spent a good chunk of his time and money building an underground shelter in anticipation of some kind of impending doom. That doom, he explains, has finally come to pass and he refuses to let Michelle out of the bunker, insisting it’s for her own safety. Though he claims he means well, Michelle can’t be sure if he’s telling the truth or just plain crazy. With the help of the shelter’s other resident/inmate Emmet (John Gallagher, Jr.), Michelle begins to plot her escape and discover the truth for herself.

That’s about as much as I can tell you without giving away significant plot details. Do yourself a favor and avoid spoilers like the plague; its surprises are worth the effort. With his feature debut, director Dan Trachtenberg proves himself a natural talent. (I shall be watching his career with great interest!) He does an excellent job wringing every ounce of suspense from the claustrophobic setting. It’s amazing that, despite taking place in a single location, he manages to keep things from growing stale with compelling staging, cinematography and production design.

Of course, it helps when the screenplay you’re working with is so strong. Written by Josh Campbell and Matt Stuecken with a little help from Whiplash writer/director Damien Chazelle, 10 Cloverfield Lane successfully balances heart-stopping thrills with effective character development and humor. It’s perfectly paced and always involving; you will never be bored.

The casting is perfect. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives a sympathetic turn as Michele. It recalls Sigourney Weaver’s in Alien, and when it comes to cinematic heroines, that’s about the highest compliment you can give. As Emmet, John Gallagher, Jr. is immediately likable and empathetic.
And then there’s John Goodman.

Mr. Goodman has, time and time again, proven he is one of the greats — an impeccable character actor who never quite seems to get the attention he deserves from mainstream audiences. His performance here is stunning. In Goodman’s hands, Howard never fully loses his humanity, which makes him all the more terrifying.

If 10 Cloverfield Lane makes any missteps, it’s in a slightly jarring 3rd Act. While undeniably effective on its own terms, it can’t help but feel a bit unearned considering its lack of relationship to everything which preceded it. It’s not enough to derail the movie by any means, but I’m sure film fans will take great pleasure in debating whether or not it was necessary.

One thing that won’t be the subject of much debate is whether or not 10 Cloverfield Lane is any good. It is. It’s better than good — it’s one of the best films of 2016 thus far. Don’t miss it.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5