Skip to main content

Warning: Batman v. Superman May Cause Severe Disappointment


          In a few months time Captain America: Civil War promises to pit two superheroes against each other. The stakes are huge, in part because the Marvel Cinematic Universe has built up well the characters of Captain America and Iron Man and their relationship with each other, but also because their conflict is directly related to their opposing principles. No doubt if Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice applied either of these, it would be a much stronger film.
          Batman v. Superman was one of the most hyped films of 2016 for good reason. Seeing the two most famous superheroes in pop culture battle each other is not something to be missed. But the movie itself doesn’t quite understand that, and by biting off more than it can chew, it fails to satisfy its most important demographic.
          After the events of Man of Steel, Superman (Henry Cavill) is seen by some as a godlike hero and by others as an omnipotent menace for the tantamount destruction he caused the city of Metropolis in the former film’s climax. When he controversially rescues Lois Lane (Amy Adams) from a hostage situation in the Middle East, he is called to answer for his actions. Meanwhile in Gotham City, a hardened and cynical Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) distrusts Superman whom he holds accountable for the deaths of many innocent civilians. When Kryptonite is found by people working for Lex Luthor (Jesse Eiseneberg), Wayne as Batman intends to steal it and use it against the Man of Steel.
          The performances in this film is good for the most part. Cavill once again does a good job as Superman; returning cast-members Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, and Amy Adams are okay (though Lois still suffers from an absence of interesting personality). As for the new additions, Ben Affleck is fine as Batman. He plays the character very differently to what most of us are used to, but he physically suits the role and is fairly believable. Jeremy Irons is perfect as Alfred, an ideal middle ground between Michael Gough and Michael Caine. And despite everything, Gal Gadot is really good as Wonder Woman. She’s not developed much which is fine (she has her own movie coming up for that), but I thought she did a great job. Many of the action sequences were also really well done and creative.
          But when it comes to the plot, this film is very messy. It opens with another retread of Batman’s origin story which isn’t necessary, and from there on we bounce back between Batman, Superman, and Lex Luthor. And the one exception to the good casting is Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor. Lex Luthor has often been portrayed as an interesting adversary to Superman, a business magnate with aspirations for world domination, but Eisenberg plays him as a genius psychotic more akin to say the Riddler which really doesn’t work. And he never feels natural in any of his scenes. Every time we shift to him the plot becomes less focussed and a little convoluted with everything that’s going on. This film’s priority needs to be on the title face off between its two titans.
          But the biggest crime of the film is regarding the ultimate fight. Suffice it to say, it’s not what was promised. It’s much shorter than we were led to believe, but also the provocation and motivation driving each hero is completely undermined by another character and plot development. Wonder Woman gets involved and it quickly becomes less Batman v. Superman and much more Dawn of Justice. Which is annoying because it feels like a disservice to the characters as well as the potential the idea that Batman v. Superman has. While the story direction was very haphazard throughout, there was still a sense it was building to something, and you can’t help but feel gypped when it fails to deliver.
          There’s also a Batman dream sequence that makes no sense, and the film proves a timely Easter release as the Christ symbolism that was already overdone in Man of Steel is played up even more here, especially by films’ end. The script is full of gimmicky lines about Batman and Superman being together or fighting which are really cringeworthy.
         Though not necessarily an awful movie, for a film called Batman v. Superman, it’s far too underwhelming. I feel like it’s trying to be an Avengers or Dark Knight calibre film without having earned it. In the end, it’s intentions to build the universe and set up future films gets in the way of its own plot and it feels like just a pointless bridge for other movies and characters to spin off from. And I’d have more faith in those future projects if DC devoted half the time to crafting better coherent stories that it does trying to catch up with Marvel.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more