The Nice Guys: Shane Black's comeback after the lukewarm feedback on "Iron Man 3"

Today, I look at the new detective comedy from Shane Black, writer of Lethal Weapon and co-writer of The Monster Squad and director of Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Iron Man 3 and the upcoming Predator and Doc Savage movies. (Obviously, this guy has had quite the resume during his 30 year career.)

The Nice Guys:
After a girl named Amelia goes missing and a death occurs, bumbling, alcoholic private investigator Holland March is put on the case. Eventually, he crosses paths with Jackson Healy, an ex-something-or-other who now has made a business for himself as a hired muscle of sorts. The two eventually decide to team up when both are targeted by some hitmen and mob enforcers, leading them to believe that Amelia's disappearance and the nearby death are linked, and are tied to a much larger conspiracy.
    Shane Black goes back to his pseudo-noir roots with this pulpy action-comedy piece. From the opening reels, I was reminded of films like Chinatown and games like L.A. Noire, not just for the setting, but also because I knew going in there would be some sort of conspiracy (the trailers make that clear), and I could see the clues being dropped immediately. This is not to discredit the film at all, however, as Black throws in plenty of curveballs and twists that make just guessing how it all fits together impossible until all the pieces are revealed masterfully. I also loved how the conspiracy plot, once shown in its' full scope, is not as deadly serious as one might expect and fits the film's crazy, fun universe.
    Black's dialogue has always be whip-smart and funny, but this is arguably his best work in comedy. My God, I didn't even realize how much I loved the film or the dialogue until me and my brother who I saw it with started quoting it constantly. It's really a brilliant and highly-quotable film.
    Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have terrific chemistry on screen and show their range here. Crowe, while used to roles as the badass fighter character or the stoic hero, has a lot more fun with the role here, and is a lot more likable and even sometimes giddy than the trailers portray. Gosling trades in his usual role of the stone-faced, brutal anti-hero from films like Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Only God Forgives for a goofy, flawed, weak-willed, lethargic private eye who needs his 13-year-old daughter to drive him from bar to bar. Speaking of which, the unofficial third part of the group is Angourie Rice as Holly. While her strange fixation on not killing got irritating at times, she ultimately is far more endearing and funny than any of the typical annoying kid sidekicks. She has great father-daughter chemistry with Gosling on screen, and even Crowe and her share some touching moments.
    Kim Basinger, Keith David, Beau Knapp, Matt Bomer, Margaret Qualley, Yaya DaCosta and Lois Smith fill out the rest of the principle cast, with memorable cameos by Murielle Telio, Ty Sympkins (a Shane Black alum), Jack Kilmer (the son of a Shane Black alum, Val Kilmer), and Hannibal Burress. All these players do fantastic jobs, but I can't really delve much into each part without spoilers.
    The action in this film, like in Lethal Weapon or other detective/buddy cop movies, is not the usual explosions and CG battles. It is more subdued, but no less fun or exciting. There aren't many true set-pieces until the final act, but the witty dialogue and slowly unraveling and increasingly crazy mystery was plenty to keep me engaged. This is a movie that feel longer than it is, in a good way. At only just shy of 2 hours, it was the shortest summer movie I've seen thus far, and it felt much more satisfying as a film than any others. It didn't feel like a bigger part of a franchise puzzle, and didn't feel cheap, and while there was room left for a sequel, it didn't pander, and that I respect more than anything I think. (The soundtrack, sets, and costumes were also fantastic, really giving an oversaturation that "this is the 70's!" that fit the comic book-y tone of the movie very well).
     The Nice Guys is an awesome ride, and is probably the best summer movie out right now, despite not really being typical summer movie fare. It's wild, hilarious, thrilling, and just a ton of fun, probably the most fun movie I've seen since last year's Mad Max: Fury Road, though the two are drastically different movies. 7.5/10 stars.

                                            (Image: Wikipedia)

X-Men- Apocalypse: A fun, albeit overblown and uneven, chapter in the never-ending franchise

Today, I look at the latest installment in the X-Men series, what I thought to be the final, but which clearly shows there is no end in sight for this saga.

X-Men, Apocalypse:
Ten years after the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier is running a successful mutant academy and mutants are becoming more integrated into society. In this new alternate timeline, Mystique is on the run, now a hero and martyr for mutant rights after her selfless acts at the conclusion of the past film. Magneto is living a quiet life under the radar in Poland as a factory worker, as he is now a wanted man for trying to kill President Nixon and destroy Washington, D.C. During this time of peace, a cult in Cairo, Egypt awakens the ancient mutant Apocalypse, the world's first, who is all-powerful. Quickly learning of man's history and capacity for destructions, as well as the creation of their own "superpowers" (nuclear weapons, technological advancements), Apocalypse decides to recruit four followers (his "Horsemen") and imbue them with advanced abilities, and plans to cleanse the Earth of those who he views as weak and unfit to live in the same world as him. With the help of CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Xavier's old flame), the retired X-Men must find a way to stop Apocalypse from tearing the world apart.
    One thing I appreciated right off the bat with this film was the alternate timeline plot that Days of Future Past allowed. Now that the original series of films has been annulled, the series can proceed down numerous new paths without worrying about getting tangled up in continuity (though there's still some here, such as the age of the character Angel not fitting with either timeline).
     One thing I found laughable was the lack of aging on characters. Now, obviously the actors haven't aged, but the makeup team didn't even attempt to make them look older. They already clarified Mystique ages slowly so that doesn't bother me much. More like Beast, Moira, Xavier, Havok, Magneto, etc. all looking roughly the same age they did in First Class, which took place 20 years prior to this one. Apparently if you just make Magneto more unshaven and slap mullets on Havok and Xavier that equals aging. Even Quicksilver hasn't aged at all. Being a teenager/college-aged in the previous film made him living in his mom's basement plausible, but ten years later?!! With his abilities he never thought to go out and make a name for himself or do something? His mom (also the same as she was before) never bothered him about this? He even acknowledges, jokingly, what a loser he is and how nothing has changed in his life. Why? Because people like young, fun, carefree Quicksilver. (They also never clarify how or why exactly Magneto ended up with his mom, who just seems way below Magneto's league. Of course, their fling happened years prior, as Magneot is Quicksilver's father, so maybe they just make her look older and drained.)
    These ages lead to problems with the age of Havok compared to his brother Scott. Scott/Cyclops is in his late teens in this film, whereas Havok looks a few years older, but really should be middle-aged by this point, making their parents elderly, but they look to be in their 50's. Just issues like that got in the way for me.
     I think Jennifer Lawrence is a fine actress, but she just doesn't do it for me as Mystique. I think she's got the look right, and certain scenes work, but her youth makes some of the speeches she gives come off as naive, cringey, and undeserved. And her new status as a freedom fighter seems completely out-of-character (Mystique in the comics and original timeline is a cold-blooded killer and her original movie counterpart rarely speaks even), and kind of political. I don't think anyone is deluding themselves that Mystique has only gotten a larger role due to Lawrence's current mega-star status. Luckily, she's downplayed in this movie compared to last time (where she was the instigator of the entire plot and was placed the same size as Wolverine on the poster), but still has more screen time than the character would've had otherwise.
    The rest of the cast are a lot of fun, and just seem to be having a great time doing these movies. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy both have their more dramatic moments, particularly Fassbender, who is able to bring a lot of emotional weight and grounds the film more in reality. Where Ian McKellen made Magneto both charming and very intimidating and shifty, Fassbender humanizes him and makes him more tragic, as if every time he tries to leave his violent past behind him and live a normal life, violence seems to find him.
    Sophie Turner is good as Jean Grey, though at times her character feels like her role on Game of Thrones. Luckily, her character her is nowhere near as aggravatingly naive and arrogant as her part on the HBO series has become, and has more of a genuinely powerful feel to her. Tye Sheridan also does a surprisingly great job as young Cyclops, who gets more development here than he did in any of the original films (poor James Marsden). Kodi Smit-McPhee was great as the partial comic relief Nightcrawler, who has been sorely absent from the series since Alan Cumming's fantastic portrayal in X2. However, of course the shining star of the cast is Evan Peters as Quicksilver. Taking one of the X-Men I was most aloof about in other media and making him into my favorite film character is a terrific feat, and he has yet another spectacular and entertaining slow-motion sequence in this film, topping the excellent "Time in a Bottle" scene from the previous film. I wasn't expecting them to do it again, but I hope it becomes a sort of tradition as the series progresses. Peters is just having a blast, and it rubs off of me as a viewer, and he provides much-needed comic relief in a world where everyone is always just talking about mutant politics and how hard it is to be themselves. Even though his comic relief is sometimes misplaced (the dramatic low point during the second act is tainted by his goofy antics), but is so well-executed and his character so lovable I excuse it. Lucas Till returns as Havok, getting a lot more screen time than the last movie. Here, rather than being Cyclops' younger brother, he takes the part of the older, and in the limited screen time they have, they have a lot of chemistry as a believable brother pair. Rose Byrne was bland here as Moira MacTaggert, who only serves as exposition and as love interest to Xavier here. She was a lot better in First Class, where she seemed to have more to do, and Byrne is usually a good actress, so I was disappointed. Lana Condor appears in a borderline cameo role as everyone's least favorite mutant, Jubilee. Hopefully in future films she has more screen time and can change the negative perception the character has from the animated series and comics.
     As for the villainous characters, Alexandra Shipp and Ben Hardy are fine supporting characters as the troubled characters Storm and Angel, and both of these characters, in their limited development, are leagues more interesting than their counterparts in the originals. Shipp's accent is also far more convincing than Halle Berry's embarrassing attempt at one in the original X-Men. Olivia Munn reportedly gave up the role as the girlfriend in Deadpool to play Psylocke, as she felt it was a stronger female role. Psylocke is a waste of space here, just thrown in to pander to fans who have waited for her appearance in a film for decades. She has few lines of dialogue, and spends most of her time strutting and hopping around in a latex suit (fun fact: fashioned at an LA sex shop), and has one fight scene with Beast and then skulks off camera as a sequel tease. She's not a character at all, she's a plot device and piece of eye candy. It's pretty pitiful, so let's hope to a sequel to shed more light on her and flesh her out a bit more.
     Now, the big question is of the titular big bad: Apocalypse. Oscar Isaac is a fantastic performer, so he is able to create a palpable sense of menace and dread when he's on screen. His determination to kill and lack of conscience or reason makes him so terrifying, and he is definitely one of the more memorable villains in the series, alongside Ian McKellen's Magneto and Brian Cox's William Stryker. However, as many have stated before me, his motivation (at least for the most part), seems very unclear. It kind of leaves it to the audience to pick up the pieces and determine for themselves his motive. He wants to cleanse the Earth. Why? Does he see humans as weaker than he is? Does he want only strong mutants and humans to live beside? Is he upset that humans didn't progress how he wanted and are trying to replicate his power? World peace by cleansing out the bad people? All of these options seem valid. His appearance is also hilariously reminiscent of Ivan Ooze from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie. So he's a weakly developed villain, but Isaac's strength as an actor makes up for it, so he's kind of a mixed bag.
     The action set-pieces in this film are, like other installments, not as prevalent as in other films, but the first few are pretty spectacular. Unfortunately, the action peaks early on with the Quicksilver scene being the midpoint climax, and there is a scene shortly after it I won't spoil with a cameo in it, but it's also really awesome and surprisingly bloody for a PG-13 film. However, the final battle, while it had moments (thanks to Quicksilver namely), didn't do it for me overall. I felt it was kind of schlocky and too CG-heavy. I felt the films were at their best when they had more reserved, personal climaxes, where the action was more grounded in reality, and more multi-layered and not one huge video game-esque melee battle. I also felt the earlier films exhausted the best set-pieces for the most part, as I feel they had sequences that really played around with the mutant powers and really showed what these characters could do, while also being a thrill to watch. Here, it's just a bunch of people in bright costumes throwing CG beams and heavy rubble at each other, and feels just not right. I couldn't tell if too little or too much was going on, and you know it's bad when you can't even determine what's wrong with something because it's so fucked.
    X-Men: Apocalypse is solid summer movie material. Is it one of the best in the series? No. But there have been worse. Much worse. That's why the intense backlash this film has gotten shocked me quite a bit. It may be a slightly mixed film, but by no stretch is it bad. It's well-plotted and written for the majority, and has a lot of fun, technically astounding scenes, and characters you can actually really get attached to and like, which is more than can be said for much of its competition lately. 7/10 stars.

A Spoiler-filled but very entertaining review/discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjNSCLQGzLA  (RedLetterMedia)

                                 (Image: Wikipedia)




Notes (SPOILERS ahead):

-The end credits scene foreshadows the new R-rated Wolverine film, which I am excited for, as it will provide the character with a much-needed but somewhat bittersweet final chapter, as it will be Hugh Jackman's final appearance as the character he began playing nearly two decades ago.

-The spoiler-heavy action scene I mentioned earlier is actually where Wolverine escapes Stryker's compound as Weapon X, mad with rage and amnesia. Bryan Singer makes a cameo as a guard Wolverine slays on his way out. Funny enough, I was actually thinking to myself right as the scene began how refreshing it was to have an X-Men film where Wolverine is absent. *sigh* Regardless, a very cool and violent scene reminiscent of the mansion raid scene in X2.

-The way Apocalypse is killed in this film made sense, but ultimately was kind of bland for me. All the very powerful mutants just blasting him with CG lasers and rubble until he disintegrates with Jean's Phoenix power. Also, I find it amusing that now, in regards to comic book movies, with all the resurrections and retconning that happens, particularly in this franchise, whenever a character is killed, I always see in the synopses on Wikipedia "the character is seemingly killed/destroyed." Same goes for here. Apocalypse was disintegrated into fucking air. I don't think he's coming back.

-There's a totally random and out-of-place scene where some mutant teens go see Return of the Jedi at the mall cinema, and have this conversation about which of the trilogy is the best. They all debate between Empire and Star Wars, before Jean Grey says "At least we can all agree the third is the worst." I was confused with the random bashing of Jedi and why the scene was included, until I quickly realized Singer was not-so-subtly taking a jab at X-Men: The Last Stand (originally the conclusion to the trilogy, and the first film he did not direct). I appreciated it, but also felt that anyone not familiar with X-Men movies would be thoroughly confused as to what the reference was all about. This scene does kind of make me question why mutants are so respected now in this new timeline, because Nightcrawler is able to walk around the mall publicly and no one bats an eye at a blue boy with fangs, a tail, and giant three-digited feet and hands? In a world where bigotry still exists against other humans, I highly doubt in one decade mutants would become this integrated, even though they establish the new timeline's people are a lot more progressive than in the old one.

-Blob, played by "Giant" Gustav Claude Ouimet, cameos early on, continuing the tradition of these films of just shoving in recognizable faces from the comics into cameo roles.

-The scene where Magneto's family is killed by clumsy police officers while trying to arrest him is heart-wrenching and well-executed. While I predicted what was about to happen, Fassbender's performance is so convincing for a comic book film that it saved it from being just a cliche tug at the heart-strings. The way in which he executed the officers is also really clever but also unnerving.

Captain America- Civil War: A mostly redeeming new installment in the increasingly stale Marvel Cinematic Universe

Again, a really late review, but I only recently saw this film in theaters.

Captain America, Civil War:
After another somewhat destructive attempt at containing a violent situation, the Avengers are contacted by General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (the headstrong, stubborn military official who's usually off hunting the Hulk), representing the UN, who criticize the Avengers' often reckless nature, despite the amount of people they save. Ross instructs them to support a new set of bills that will put the Avengers under the jurisdiction of the UN, who will first discuss if a situation even needs their attention. Captain America doesn't want to be a part of this, for obvious reasons, and it leads to a split in the team: those in favor and those opposed. Iron Man leads those in favor, as he is in complete agreement with the UN (for reasons which are very apparently selfish). Meanwhile, a string of recent terror attacks are blamed on Bucky Barnes/The Winter Soldier, who is still on the run after escaping the clutched of HYDRA at the conclusion of the previous film. Captain America violates his commitment to his team to chase after and save his old friend from persecution by the government, all while new players come into the fray and a mysterious new villain pulls the strings of the entire situation.
    I wasn't even particularly excited for this film, but saw it more out of obligation, and was pleasantly surprised by how entertained I was with it. Is it a flawless film? Hell no. In fact, the entire basis for the conflict in the movie is contrived and clearly one-sided (Captain America's side is clearly in the right throughout the entire movie, and the government in this film is one of the most misguided and idiotic and stubborn in all fiction). It's not even the best Captain America movie (it's not as bland as the first, but is nowhere near as focused as the second). It was, regardless, a fun blockbuster movie, and really should just be considered an Avengers 2.5, as the only Avengers absent from the film are Hulk and Thor. The Russo Brothers are actually able to juggle the overstuffed roster of heroes, villains and supporting characters fairly well, but the character relationships meaning anything to you really rely on you seeing all the previous Marvel films first (great monetary strategy there, Disney/Marvel).
    One of my most dreaded aspects of this film was Spider-Man, as I felt having him introduced in someone else's film was no way for such a major character to get treated, and I felt it was just too much. While I still hold on both of those accounts, he wasn't in the film all that much, and I actually liked Tom Holland's portrayal a lot. Time will tell if he bests Tobey Maguire, but he was nowhere near as annoying or unlikable as Andrew Garfield's portrayal, and felt like an awkward, funny teenager. The suit itself is design-wise excellent, but the CG looked way too synthetic and they'll need to work on that in future installments.
    Daniel Bruhl as the main villain Helmut Zemo was actually a breath of fresh air for an MCU antagonist. He was genuinely compelling (as much as a summer blockbuster villain can be, anyway) and didn't rely too heavily on crazy costumes or a gimmick to make him stand out. However, once his motivation is revealed as an overdone and almost comical cliche, all the mystery and menace surrounding his character washes away and he falls flat. Even though a problem with many Marvel villains is they only show up for one installment and don't do much interesting, I hope he can be involved in future installments so he can do something interesting and redeem the damage done to his character.
    Frank Grillo briefly returns as Brock Rumlow/Crossbones, the renegade STRIKE leader from the previous film. While I was sad his role was cut short, I also felt he was used appropriately, the same way Batroc the Leaper was used in The Winter Soldier: have a more minor villain show up at the beginning to reintroduce the heroes using an exciting action sequence and provide a match for Captain America in a cool fight.
     New introductions to the series include Martin Freeman in a very minor role, and Chadwick Boseman, who does a fine job as T'Challa/Black Panther, prince of Wakanda and who is on a revenge mission against the Winter Soldier, bringing him to butt heads with Captain America. While is screen time is limited compared to other heroes, he is a welcome addition to the ensemble.
    There were many narrative problems with the movie, from some cliched and rushed scenes (the death of a character's father was cliche and totally handled poorly), and, again, as many have pointed out, the government and Iron Man in this film are very unsympathetic and their motivation is garbage. "The Avengers cause collateral damage wherever they go, resulting in thousands of deaths." Yeah, versus billions of deaths if they did nothing, which Ross almost acknowledges when he's not smugly and unflinchingly showing death footage of their various battles to guilt them into agreeing with him. And the UN bill wouldn't even stop the casualties, just acknowledge when the casualties were "worth it" for the greater good. And the government was all for nuking NYC in The Avengers, which would've resulted in far more civilian deaths had Iron Man not stepped in.
     As far as I understand, the Civil War arc in the comics was less a UN board squabbling over whether to let the Avengers fight and more a registration act like in X-Men, where each hero would have to publically register themselves (still a really stupid idea). But the motivation felt more realistic because the entire controversy in-story was set off when heroes neglected to contain a villain who can explode on command, resulting in hundreds of children dying, as they were fighting in a playground. Here, it's because an accident near the beginning leads to a few dozen deaths at a government office complex in Lagos, in addition to the other times the Avengers' actions led to unintentional carnage. That just feels a little forced to me, as the benefits of the team so clearly outweigh the flaws.
    The relationship between Bucky and Captain America feels a bit forced at times, but ultimately gets more fleshed out in this movie, and the final three-way battle between them and Iron Man is a lot more emotional and investing than expected, even though, crushingly, it (and the other events in the film) have little impact on the team in the end.
     Captain America: Civil War has plenty wrong with it, and often has too much going on (I didn't even mention the inappropriately placed and a bit creepy romantic interest shoved in this film- who is the niece of Captain America's original love interest) but it should just be taken at face value. It's better than the last two Marvel films for sure, and balances out the fun, campy humor with some more serious and dark moments, creating a good bridge of tones I felt should be kept for future Marvel films. 7/10 stars.

Two great reviews (the former more a discussion) about the film, with Spoiler Segments, that cover a lot of what I left out of this review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJvUTFVqwJQ (RedLetterMedia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6X8oHh7wA (Your MovieSucks)


                          (Image: Wikipedia)

Hardcore Henry: Ever seen a videogame you felt should've just been a movie? How about a movie that should've just been a videogame?

I followed news of this film from the original music video that inspired it ("Bad Motherfucker" by Biting Elbows for those that don't know, as well as its precursor "The Stampede"), to its sneak previews and premieres at film festivals, all the way to its anticipated release internationally this past April. So, did it live up to the hype?

Hardcore Henry:
You, the audience, awake in a POV state. Your scientist wife, Estelle, addresses you as Henry, and says there was an accident that has led Henry to becoming a cyborg. Suddenly, mercenaries burst in, slaughtering the staff and kidnapping Estelle. Henry barely escapes the facility, and must travel the countryside without memories, chasing his wife with your mysterious new associate Jimmy (who may or may not be trustworthy), pursued by the mercenaries, led by the telepathic and gleefully theatrical villain Akan. Learning the extent of his newfound powers, Henry shoots, stabs, and bludgeons his way across Russia, becoming a hardened killer and super solider on his quest for revenge.
    I was very excited for this film, having heard it compared tonally to films like Mad Max: Fury Road and Crank for its emphasis on style over substance, and mindless and bloody fun over plot or character. Not that I don't love films with deep, fleshed-out characters and intricate plotting, but I also enjoy a well-made piece of escapism as well. Now, the actual film was disappointing on a few fronts, and I'll cover those right away. I felt the use of GoPros for the limited budget and goal of entirely being in first-person was impressive and practical, but the quality of the cameras does not exactly translate to the big screen all that well, as many shots were slightly fuzzy-looking. The special effects for many shoot out sequences were fine, but the CGI blood sprays and explosions often looked like a YouTube video, which is not to disrespect CG animators on YouTube, but for a feature film, it's a little more noticeable.
    Also: the lack of plot and incredibly rigid structure of this film made it often exhausting. While that sounds contradictory, I mean there was no real characters (just archetypes) to get into, so the action took center stage, But after a while, the rinse-and-repeat formula (crazy action scene, then calm break of about two minutes, then next action scene) left me feeling drained, and that this would function better as a web series or video game, something where you can take breaks at your leisure or that felt more interactive. There was also a sound issue in the final battle (the song was quieter than the sound effects), and the way the film ended felt abrupt and kind of awkward and amateur but those are incredibly minor.
    Other than those minor issues, I felt the film delivered on its promise of weird, crazy, chaotic, fun, violent action and the set-pieces were incredibly well-constructed for a first time feature director, and the lack of characters and over-the-top acting often added to the charm of this wild movie. There were non-action sequences that were incredibly Neveldine and Taylor-esque (a song and dance number near the climax of the film added some much-needed comic relief as well as tied together a mysterious plot line). The final battle was jaw-dropping, as I was not expecting the film to pack the amount of gore it did, especially not in its' final moments. It was exhilarating and entertaining as hell. Also: the opening credits sequence was very Bond, while also foreshadowing the possibly Evil Dead inspired splatstick style of humor.
    Danila Kozlovsky was entertaining as the tongue-in-cheek and ridiculous villain Akan, Haley Bennett played a decent damsel in distress (though the reveal with her character is very predictable towards the climax), and Tim Roth has a nice cameo. But the only character i can truly say is impactful in any significant way is Sharlto Copley as Jimmy. Once again, Copley shows his incredible range as an actor: he spend the movie doing silly accents and wearing goofy outfits, but is also some good comic relief and ultimately a bit of a tragic character who I actually grew to care about on some level (he is supposed to be the audience's guide/companion of sorts).
    Do not go into Hardcore Henry expecting a traditional moviegoing experience. If you like any sort of linear narrative or strong central characters, then I suggest looking elsewhere. But if you love so brainless, energetic, if a bit gruesome action and humor, then I would highly recommend it (if you've seen the music videos the film is based on, or listened to the director's band Biting Elbows' punk-style pop rock, you'll know pretty much what to expect). It is a lower budget indie film, so it may not have the special effects many Western audiences are used to expecting from action films, but the impressive choreography and insane sequences will provide ample distraction. Bravo to Ilya Naishuller on a terrific first outing, and I'd like to see him pursue more films in the future. 7/10 stars.

                                                           (Image: Wikipedia)

Batman v. Superman- Dawn of Justice: Bloated and boring, a review I don't want to write as much as I didn't want to see this movie but felt obligated to

I'm just trying to get this one over with.

Batman v. Superman, Dawn of Justice:
After the destruction of Metropolis at the conclusion of Man of Steel, the public is debating whether or not having Kal-El/Superman around is a good thing. Continuing his relationship with Lois Lane and job at the newspaper as Clark Kent, he is faced with a new challenger. The aging but still very active and violent vigilante Batman is operating in the neighboring city of Gotham. Batman, after first hand witnessing the fallout of Metropolis' demise, is determined to stop the overpowered alien visitor from causing any more havoc, even if it means having to take him down personally. All the while skeevy young tycoon Lex Luthor (Junior) is pulling the strings to get Superman out of the picture so he can rule Metropolis. Why is all this happening? Because DC needs a quick movie to catch up with Marvel.
    Everything about this film feels forced and purely corporate driven. It is far too early to cram this many heroes into one film as not each hero has been set up yet. Not necessarily saying everyone needs an origin movie, but at least a means of setting them up prior to the battle royale film. It took Marvel almost ten years since the original Iron Man to get to their Civil War film because it takes time to build these character relationships (however cliche) to get the audience to care about the conflict. This film barely can even find a reason for the two heroes to dislike each other, simply they have different approaches to dealing with completely different problems (i.e. Superman fights cosmic threats, Batman deals with street thugs and psychopaths).
    The problem was also adapting several different stories: they adapt The Dark Knight Returns and Superman: Doomsday simultaneously, while also doing a Justice League setup and Batman vs. Superman story. It is a jumbled mess that completely is tonally off. It is very clear that this film had extensive cuts made (solidified by the upcoming "Ultimate" R-rated cut) to keep it to the still draining 2 and a half hour runtime.
    Ben Affleck actually delivered fairly well as Batman, being dark and imposing, almost like a horror character, and really selling the idea that this is a vengeful person who puts the fear into criminals and cops alike. However, his "no killing" rule that has been so integral to his mythos for so long has been scrapped in favor of the militarized, borderline self-parodying Batman of the Frank Miller graphic novels that does not seem to wince at bloodshed or torture to achieve his goals of clean streets. Also, his motivation to hate Superman is staggeringly weak. For such a worldly and intelligent character as Batman is supposed to be, he sure jumps to xenophobia and paranoia quickly.
    The rest of the cast (at least the returners from Man of Steel) do fine but ultimately are just so droll and lifeless that they cease to be investing. Zack Snyder's casting now matches his visual palate: he's able to do such remarkable things with visuals, but always tends to suck out the color and energy in his films, surprisingly, given the comic medium's great strengths have always been a reliance strong visuals and striking colors.
    Callan Mulvey appears as KGBeast (only called by his name in this film), Scoot McNairy and Holly Hunter have new supporting roles, and Jeremy Irons is Alfred and all do okay, as none are given enough screentime to really develop (or in Mulvey's case, he's a one-dimensional henchman character who was only included to give comic fans the hope that more obscure villains will be used in the future).
     On a related note, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was not all that bad. Sure, he had some off moments (probably due to those extensive cuts I mentioned), and many complained he's too chaotic for a Lex Luthor, but ultimately I thought the idea of turning him into a jittery, eccentric Silicon Valley-esque CEO was a fresh take, even though his dialogue was often hammy and over dramatic.
    The film's plot is drawn out and dull, and certain sequences stand out (namely the introduction of Batman, which was tense and surprisingly eerie), but a lot (the opening slow-mo sequence is just the same Batman origin scene we've seen a million times, with some added laughable religious symbolism) didn't amount to much and the real action set-pieces don't begin until the climax, at which point the movie shifts from overly brooding and grim (seriously, the charming Superman doesn't so much as crack a reassuring smile when he's saving people from danger) to a campy, silly CGI mess. Even the actual Batman vs. Superman fight felt overlong and didn't fit in this universe at all (Snyder's Kal-El went from disintegrating skyscrapers with minimal effort in the previous film to barely being able to dent Batman's armor here), and ultimately was just boring to watch because there was no investment in the characters.
    The overall choices made in the film were dismal (Jimmy Olsen, a beloved comics character, is not even named on screen and dies 30 seconds after he's introduced as Lois' CIA contact on a trip to a warzone; the odd release date in March; the extensive cuts and rush to get this film to theaters; the cramming of far too many characters and ideas into what should be just a Batman vs Superman piece; having Batman and Superman fight in only their second film together; not just making a Man of Steel sequel, etc.) If this is really DC's method of making films, then I think it's time for them to quit trying to catch up with Marvel (they're a near-decade behind them), and just stick to doing what they've always done best: standalone films. Or maybe, just maybe, slow their roll on this whole "cinematic universe" idea. Because judging by this film's reception, people aren't having it, and DC will tank if they keep this up. Zack Snyder should go back to adapting novels and remaking things because when he has to build a fresh script from the ground up, it never ends well, and his visuals are his strong point, not his storytelling abilities. 4/10 stars.

                                                             (Image: Wikipedia)