2016: The Year in Film: "Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice" Review

I seriously can't even imagine how pissed off Warner Bros. and DC are over the fact that Marvel is making widely beloved and extremely profitable flicks featuring their second and third tier characters while DC has yet to establish a shared universe featuring the two most recognizable comic book characters to ever exist. Zack Snyder was brought in to try to bring a shared universe to DC and made the halfway decent Man of Steel a few years back. I mostly liked MoS, but thought that it featured some questionable choices, morality, WAY too much product placement and kind of went off the rails at the end. However, I thought there was enough good there to give the flick a favorable review and it left me cautiously optimistic for what was to come next for DC.  However, pretty much EVERYTHING that happened next only caused me to become more and more concerned for Zack Snyder's sanity and the presence (or lack thereof) of any kind of adult supervision over at DC.  First, the announcement that DC's universe would disregard Christopher Nolan's Batman films (all of which are infinitely better than Man of Steel and which featured a legitimate way forward for Batman). Second, the announcement that DC's universe would continue with a "Batman vs Superman" movie (that was announced featuring a reading from the famous showdown in "The Dark Knight Returns"), where a new Batman would be introduced, followed by Justice League. This set off warning bells in my mind. We were going to go from Man of Steel (a standalone Superman origin film) to full blown Justice League with only one intermediary step? Trouble. Marvel had 5 films before Avengers, and had introduced all of the main characters in a prolonged way. Third, the reveal that not only would this movie feature Batman and Superman, we'd ALSO get Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Alfred, Lois Lane and an assortment of nonsense. Trouble. That's without even going into Zack Snyder's problems as a director. He has a great visual eye. That much is undeniable. His films are absolutely gorgeous and he can direct the hell out of an action sequence. HOWEVER, he's also incredibly juvenile and responds in the worst imaginable way to criticism. It was clear that he was extremely bothered by the backlash to the fact that his Superman in MOS completely destroyed Metropolis for largely pointless reasons. He didn't think it was bad that Superman went out of his way to destroy things, because that destruction looked REALLY cool. Who else thinks that way? Michael Bay. Yes, I'm saying that Zack Snyder is Michael Bay who likes the color black. Zack Snyder is emo Michael Bay. Having him direct and be the architect of your comic book universe is fine... BUT you'd better have adult supervision in place. Chris Nolan was supervising Man of Steel... you'd be wise to leave him around, DC. Instead they gave Snyder MORE power and put him in charge of assembling and creating your Justice League. Sigh.

So here we are. It's been 18 months since the events of Man of Steel, and Superman is at once celebrated for saving the human race and mistrusted for being an alien who caused untold destruction during his battle to save humanity. In Gotham City, Batman/Bruce Wayne distrusts Superman following his firsthand witnessing of the destruction of a Wayne Industries building in downtown metropolis and the deaths of many of his employees.

The Good: First, the film is utterly overstuffed. However, some of the elements that make it overstuffed aren't necessarily problems and are in fact the best parts of the film. Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is set up here, and she is awesome. Every single scene she's in is a treat and she would have been even more amazing if her intro hadn't been spoiled in the trailer. Which seems like a dumb move in retrospect. Ben Affleck's casting as Bruce Wayne was totally derided in fan boy circles... but he's pretty great. His Batman has an intimidating physicality that makes this more violent and jaded dark knight particularly terrifying. The action scenes are well done by and large, and the hints of the Justice League are some of the best parts of the movie.



The Bad: the plot is a mess. By and large, this feels like a 6 hour movie that was cut down to 2.5 hours... and I suppose that's what you get when you try to do the work of 3 movies in one (still too long!) runtime. Character motivations don't make any sense and characters run around doing what they need to do for the plot without the film telling or showing us why that would actually make any sense. Batman is a total fascist idiot when he needs to be, and yet he's exhaustively researching other characters at other points in the same movie. If he's going to exhaustively hack into security systems and what not shouldn't he at least have a conversation with Superman before deciding to just up and murder him? No? Cool, Zack. Good call.

I want to talk about one thing, especially. This film takes the time to show us Bruce Wayne's parents getting murdered. Why do we need that? Is there ANYONE who doesn't know that Bruce's parents died in front of him and was just dying for a scene of a child screaming in anguish as his parents are gunned down in the street? Who decided that was a necessity in a movie that BARELY has an comprehensible plot? That's without even mentioning how damn stupid it is that Martha Wayne's pearl necklace somehow got caught in the murderer's gun. Was it a 30 foot necklace? Or was the gunman shooting her from 4 inches away but she couldn't just slap the gun away? It doesn't make sense, Zack.

Ok, there is SO MUCH that happens because it happens in the comics. The amount of outside knowledge that is required to watch this movie is insane. What is Doomsday, what are his powers and why does he seem to be impossible to kill? NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THE MOVIE NEVER TELLS YOU. Why does Clark Kent love Lois Lane? No one knows. Because he does in the comics, duh. Henry Cavill is boring. Amy Adams is miscast and underused. The Daily Planet subplot is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. (Which, btw, how is Clark Kent a reporter in this world? He doesn't have a degree)  Batman is an idiot and Alfred tells him he's an idiot and then he's no longer an idiot for the dumbest reason imaginable. Batman and Superman murder people. Several people. But for some reason not Lex Luthor. There was probably once a good movie here... but it's buried under what should have been a solo Batman movie to set up Batfleck and a separate Man of Steel sequel.


Pro-tip, DC: DON'T HIRE BEN AFFLECK TO ACT IN ZACK SNYDER MOVIES. Haven't you seen The Town? Argo? Those movies are infinitely better than anything Snyder has made or ever will make. This movie is infuriating because it feeds into the nonsense that superhero movies are stupid and pointless. THIS superhero movie is stupid and pointless because Zack Snyder treats his audiences like idiots.

I HATED THIS MOVIE. Except for Wonder Woman. She was amazing.

Watch, but only to hate watch, and to enjoy a few cool scenes.

4/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Gone Girl" Review

Gillian Flynn's novel "Gone Girl" was kind of everywhere a few years back. I definitely read it and really liked it, and I think most of the people I know read it. It's a fascinating mix of Americana, noir, murder-mystery and domestic drama all set against the backdrop of the late 2000's economic downturn. Basically a "Lifetime" movie with a twist, the book was a fascinating twist on a familiar narrative, and even if the ending was a controversial one, the book was a pretty massive hit in 2012. The film went into production pretty much immediately thereafter, and once David Fincher's name was attached, I immediately focused on this flick as one to watch. Fincher, the auteur behind films as diverse as Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, has a visual style all his own, and his willingness to delve into the darkest sides of the human condition in a brutal way made him an ideal choice for the adaptation of "Gone Girl". Throw in the fact that Gillian Flynn, the author, was brought on board to help write the adaptation, and there was quite a lot of buzz around this flick upon its release.

In Gone Girl, we're introduced to Nick Dunne, (Ben Affleck) a handsome, aloof, all-American type of guy whose wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) has just gone missing.  Through a mix of flashbacks and following the investigation of the disappearance, it becomes clear that there is more to this picture-perfect couple than meets the eye, and as the media circus descends on the sleepy Missouri town, the entire case begins to spiral out of control.

The Good: it's Fincher, one of the most visually distinctive directors of our time, so the visuals certainly do not disappoint. As Fincher has matured as a filmmaker, he's able to convey simmering tension better than just about anyone in the business, and even though the film isn't able to keep the same sense of mystery going that surrounds a first-time reader of the book, the outcome remains in doubt and keeps you glued to the screen. Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck are pretty-spot on casting, and Pike especially shines, in a role that's not quite like anything else I've ever seen her do. The supporting cast is strong as well, with Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry (?), Kim Dickens and (Ohio native!) Carrie Coon performing admirably as well. Carrie Coon, fresh off of The Leftovers (which I kind of love, btw) shines, and I really hope that she continues to find steady work. The narrative flows and progresses pretty seamlessly, and despite a long runtime the film is pretty tight, without much meandering or wasted space that seems to be a hallmark of many film adaptions of books.



The Bad: The character of Nick is a problem. But he was a problem in the book as well... he's just not interesting, charming or compelling. That's not an indictment of Affleck's performance, because Nick is a big, aloof lug in the book as well, it's just a criticism of the story as a whole. Additionally, the film suffers compared to the book because you, an audience member, never really believes that Nick did it. In the book that remains an open mystery, and the story suffers as a result. Additionally, the ending of the film, even though it's a marked improvement over the ending in the book (I told you the ending was a problem..) still feels abrupt and disappointing. In a film that seems to pride itself on quasi-realism, the ending just... isn't realistic at all, and that is pretty jarring.

In all, if you're a fan of Fincher, a fan of the book, or a fan of neo-noir-ish mysteries, there's a ton to like in this movie. It's dark, it's cynical, it's bleak, but it's also wild and fun in a crazy way. Well worth a watch.

7.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Argo" Review.

I was lucky enough to catch a screening of this one a week before it hits theaters (it comes out Friday, October 12), and this flick has been one I've been excited for since I first saw the trailer. (Check the 2012 Movie Preview if you don't believe me.) Based on a "truth is stranger than fiction" style true story, (Best told in this Wired Story) during the Iran Hostage Crisis of '79-'80, where Iranian students and radicals stormed the American embassy during the Iranian revolution, taking 52 embassy workers hostage and holding them for 444 days. Well, the lesser known part of the story is that 6 embassy workers escaped during the storming of the embassy, simply walking out the front door and seeking refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. As the Iranian forces desperately sought out any and all Americans still in Iran to punish and use as leverage against the American government that had long supported the brutal Shah, the CIA faced a race against time and a possible diplomatic and PR crisis.

This is a story that seems custom-made for the screen, as the CIA and other government agencies seek to formulate a plan, any plan, to get these still-hidden Americans out before they face capture and likely worse by an angry and violently anti-American Iranian regime.  CIA specialist Tony Mendez formulates a plan that seems utterly preposterous, but may be the only option - create a phony movie studio with legitimate Hollywood types and a false Star Wars rip-off, complete with a cast and a script, that's seeking to film in Iran, and all of the Americans can leave together as a Canadian film crew.  You can't make this stuff up.

With a premise like that, the primary job of the filmmaker is simply going to be to don't screw it up.  It's an amazing premise, but one that could easily descend into camp or worse simply by virtue of having to many moving parts.  You need to take your premise as serious as it actually was while still recognizing that yes, this was completely ridiculous.  The good news?  Director Ben Affleck (who is slowly but surely moving up the list of quality American filmmakers..) surely does not screw this one up.  This flick is part insider Hollywood comedy, part political thriller/race against time, but the two parts fit and make this amazing story worth telling into a legitimately great movie.

The Good:  The film moves back and forth from Hollywood to political intrigue seamlessly, and Affleck never once lets the plot get away from him.  Everything is designed to ratchet the tension to higher and higher levels, so that by the final escape attempt, you're literally on the edge of your seat.  This flick is hilarious at times (Alan Arkin and John Goodman, especially, chew up scenery and really knock their Hollywood insider roles out of the park) and almost unbearably tense at times (I think I bit off all of my fingernails during the last 45 minutes) but it seamlessly comes together into one greater whole.  The performances are more than adequate (personally, I'd have loved to have seen more of Bryan Cranston), but this flick is about pacing, about atmosphere, and about scenery.  Everything is meticulously re-created, a series of pictures during the credits will show you just HOW MUCH everyone and everything looks exactly like it was, and that labor pays huge dividends as this is a flick that looks great and is one of the more effectively entertaining adult flicks I've seen in years.  This is the kind of movie that Spielberg has been trying to make for 20 years and just can't make anymore because he's too damn sentimental.  When you're able to be THAT tense and THAT suspenseful, despite the fact that EVERYONE knows that none of the embassy staff were killed in the Iran Hostage Crisis (or, I hope they do), you're doing something right.  And this flick is doing a lot right.

 

The bad: I don't know if it's Affleck's performance or the screenplay's treatment of him, but Tony Mendez as a character could have really benefited from some meatier development.  This guy is an American hero, and the flick mainly uses him to ferry about from plot point to plot point.  He's given some anguished scenes and a small family sub-plot, but one of the greatest agents in the history of the CIA (Jimmy Carter's words) could have benefited from a more charismatic performance and meatier development.  All of the characters, in general, are slightly under-developed.  Now, I get that this is a political thriller and escape movie at its root, so character is secondary to the plot and suspense, but we don't care as much about some of these people as we should.  Note: I'm nit-picking at this point.  This is one of the best movies of the year.

In all, this is an incredibly well-done flick.  Affleck is one of the finest American filmmakers working today (he's currently 3-3 as a director, with "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town" already both winning wide acclaim), and I for one can't wait to see him continue to grow as a director.  This is total awards bait, and although it might not win a lot at the Oscars (this year's slate will be STACKED), it will certainly be nominated, and rightfully so.  This is a great film.  One of the better and more watchable films I've seen in quite some time.  The final act is near perfection.

9/10.