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

Fantastic Four Made Me Feel a Little Less Alive and Very Sleepy

In my experience, there are two kinds of Bad Movies. First is the kind so atrocious, so unbelievably awful, that it ascends simple ‘badness’ to become something more, something so bad it’s good (i.e. The Room, Miami Connection, Rocky IV, The Happening, etc.). Then there are movies that are just so painful it’s difficult to derive any enjoyment whatsoever out of watching them (i.e. The Star Wars Prequels, The Godfather Part III, X-Men 3, Die Another Day, Rocky V, The Last Airbender, etc.). Until this past week I hadn’t even considered the possibility of another, but the newest Fantastic Four has blown my mind wide open, introducing me to a whole new category of bad movie: the kind that makes you feel like you haven’t even watched a movie but witnessed some kind of amorphous black hole designed to drain any sense of joy or love from every fiber of your being. It’s not so bad it’s good; it’s so bad I’m surprised it was released at all. It’s something of an anti-movie. Even Roger Corman’s unreleased disaster-fest is a better storytelling venture and I never thought I would ever use that travesty as the prime example of any aspect of filmmaking.

Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic as the marketing campaign had dubbed it before the onslaught of furious fans forced them to get rid of the tacky ‘4 as an A’ idea) is the latest failed attempt to revitalize Marvel’s 1st family, this time in the vein of the ‘gritty reboot’ aesthetic that never actually works unless it’s made by Christopher Nolan. (See The Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel for further details) Why 20th Century Fox and director Josh Trank decided to go in this direction, aside from the money signs generated from Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, is beyond me, especially when you consider that the Fantastic Four are essentially the Brady Bunch with superpowers. I mean, come on, we’ve got a character called Mr. Fantastic whose main superpower is the ability to stretch and the Human Torch who shouts, “Flame On!” as he bursts into flames and you expect us to take this seriously? This comic book is so inherently absurd that all you can do is embrace that absurdity and use it to your advantage. Even Tim Story’s god-awful Fantastic Four films got that aspect of the characters right. (Again, I can’t believe I’m using such terrible films as an example of how to do something right in a movie.) Fant4stic seems embarrassed by every aspect of its source material, doing its utmost to distance itself from it as much as possible, often to its detriment.

Things start off promisingly enough with a flashback that introduces us to a young Reed Richards and Ben Grimm and shows how they became friends. We flash forward a few years (only the first of many lazy flash forward moments – at least they kept that element from Corman’s catastrophe) to find Reed and Ben all grown up and looking an awful lot like Miles Teller and Jamie Bell. With Ben’s help, although it’s never clearly stated how exactly he helps since he’s not a scientist by any stretch, Reed has finally ‘perfected’ the transportation device he’s been working on ever since he was a kid. He catches the eye of Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey) who apparently frequents high school science fairs on the regular in the hopes that he might recruit budding new talent. Dr. Storm is attempting to make a breakthrough in teleportation in order to transport a team of scientists to an alternate dimension in the hopes of finding new resources to sustain human life. Reed seems to have cracked the code, so Dr. Storm jumps at the opportunity to recruit them. Well, maybe ‘jumps’ isn’t the right word for it; Cathey’s performance is so monotone that his excitement is more akin to being slightly sleepy as opposed to totally sleepwalking.

The first act of the film, in which Reed is introduced to Sue and Victor Von Doom and Johnny, is the only functioning act of the entire endeavor. Note, I said ‘functioning,’ not ‘successful,’ because it feels like the act is just barely working. Still, it does a decent job getting all the pieces in the right place and setting up the following acts.

If only there were any following acts.

It takes roughly 40 minutes or so before any superpowers are gained and as soon as they are the film throws up a ‘1 Year Later’ title card, which for some reason they thought would adequately take the place of an entire 2nd Act, no joke. Some military doofus gives some kind of Powerpoint presentation to show how the team has developed their powers and learnt to control them.  What follows is a jumbled mess of an attempt to create some kind of story from this shapeless mass of plotting and an inexplicable lead-in to a third act climax that is so rushed and underwhelming it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic. (My friend and I actually turned to each other and said, “Is this…supposed to be the final fight?”) The story is so uninvolving and so jumbled that at a certain point it was more entertaining keeping track of Kate Mara's awful wig than it was paying attention to the actual movie.

Is it really this hard to make a decent Fantastic Four film? We’ve already gotten four (how ironic) and not a single one has been good. Brad Bird has already proven the formula works with his animated masterpiece The Incredibles, so what gives, people?? And, unlike 99% of the nerd community, I actually had high hopes for this one. I loved Josh Trank’s first film Chronicle, a fresh, entertaining take on the superhero origin story, and was excited to see what he could bring to the table with a larger budget. While we might not know the full extent of the drama that happened between 20th Century Fox and Trank behind the scenes, one thing is for certain: someone done effed up. Big time. Not even in the film’s most inspired moments (and I’d hate to use the word ‘inspired’ when it comes to anything to do with Fant4stic) does Trank’s direction seem anything but lifeless. The majority of the film takes place in two locations, an underground warehouse and the giant green screen the cast stood on in order to film the alternate dimension sequences. It’s claustrophobic in the worst way and the drab production design and overwhelmingly grey color scheme is mind-numbing.

Likewise, it’s painful to watch such a talented young cast have to make their way through this drudgery. Miles Teller in particular gives it his best go before giving up about halfway through. The rest of this doomed ensemble, which includes Kate Mara as a muted Sue Storm, a barely-present Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm/The Thing, a brooding Toby Kebbell as Victor Von Doom, and a robotic Reg E. Cathey as Dr. Franlkin Storm, doesn’t even bother trying, having even less to work with.

By the time Fant4stic’s eternal 100-minute runtime had concluded, I was desperate to get out into the bright summer sunshine and do anything to remind me that I was indeed a human being and capable of emotion and joy. Calling it a mess is giving it too much credit. I can’t remember the last time a movie made me feel so utterly bereft of anything. One can only hope that the sting of this immense failure will contribute to the rights returning to Marvel Studios. Perhaps then the Fantastic Four will finally get their due. And some actual color. Please, just, for the love of God, give me ANY color.

FINAL RATING: 1/5

Ant-Man Wins Big By Keeping Things Small

Sometimes the best things really do come in small packages, as evidenced by the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s 12th feature Ant-Man. After the chaotic, overstuffed mayhem of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man feels like a breath of fresh air. It has its negatives – familiar story beats; an underwhelming villain; not to mention its proceedings carry an inescapable sense of triviality. But these are easily outweighed by an overall sense of fun and a stellar lead performance from Paul Rudd.

Ant-Man scales things down significantly for a Marvel movie, both literally and figuratively. Its story follows Scott Lang, a kindhearted thief who’s just been released from prison following a legendary single-man heist. He’s determined to leave the life of thievery behind him and to make good by his 5-year-old daughter, who lives with her mother (Judy Greer) and step-father (Bobby Cannavale). Despite Scott’s good intentions, his criminal record makes it difficult to maintain a steady job and despite his reluctance he ends up getting pulled back into the thieving world by the promise of a major score. Turns out, the ‘score’ is an elaborate ruse to assess his skills orchestrated by none other than Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a mastermind scientist and (as comic fans are well aware) the original Ant-Man. Hank was forced out of his company by its new CEO and his own ex-apprentice Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), who is hard at work developing his own shrinking formula to sell to the highest bidder. This could spell disaster for the future of mankind, so, Hank recruits Scott to help him steal Cross’ formula and ensure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.

Ant-Man works in so many ways it’s easy to forgive its structural shortcomings, which have become almost commonplace for Marvel Studios’ origin tales. It carries the zippy, tossed-off punchline energy of the first Iron Man, which keeps it feeling fresh and fun even as the plotting and exposition threatens to hold it back from true excellence. Director Peyton Reed does an admirable, if relatively uninspired, job keeping things breezy and exciting. The smaller-scaled action sequences are often stunning and frequently hilarious. As unfair as it might be, it’s difficult not to ponder the potential of an Edgar Wright-helmed Ant-Man film, but Reed proves to be a decent successor.

Where this film truly shines is in its casting. As I’ve already mention, Rudd’s performance is what truly elevates the material. He is a natural leading man, charming and self-effacing without being overly cloying. He’s the perfect everyman and makes it very easy to root for him. Michael Douglas is immediately likable as the original Ant-Man Hank Pym and Evangeline Lilly gives a solid turn as his daughter Hope. Lilly gets the short stick of development as the token female character/romantic interest, but she manages to hold her own and the promise that she’ll have a bigger role to play in future films helps lighten the blow. Corey Stoll as the film’s primary antagonist has to deal with the same underwritten villain territory that plagues practically all of these films, but he’s totally game for it and actually manages to elevate the material with a sheer sense of villainous glee. My personal favorite supporting characters are Scott’s personal thieving team, played by Michael Pena, David Dastmalchian, and Tip “T.I.” Harris. All three provide the best possible comic relief, with Pena being the show-stealer for practically every scene he’s in.

Ant-Man wraps up Phase 2 of the Marvel world with a nice little bow and sets the stage nicely for things to come without getting bogged down by Marvel’s incessant need to foreshadow future events and provide cameos for its other beloved characters. Though the lack of significant stakes makes it difficult to get too concerned about any of our primary players, the sheer volume of fun, laugh-out-loud moments is enough to keep Ant-Man’s head above water. Truth be told, I think I may prefer Age of Ultron, but I appreciated Ant-Man more due to the simple fact that it takes the time to tell a story and allows its characters to breath without the incessant need for constant, chaotic action.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5