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)
No comments:
Post a Comment