He’s Back! (Superman Returns, 2006)

So, nearly twenty years later, after numerous failed attempts to bring Superman back to the big screen Warner Brothers managed a major coup. The wrangled Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris away from the X-Men franchise to bring Superman back. This seemed like a decent idea. One of the things Singer talked about was a love for the character and the first two Superman films. He wanted to stay in a loose continuity with those films and ignore films III ad IV entirely. They set out and found a guy who bore a striking resemblance to Reeve, named Brandon Routh. Truthfully, it would have been wiser to simply begin again with a new continuity, especially since they were starting with an actress ten years younger than Margot Kidder was in Superman II. And to facilitate the “Returns” part they had Superman go on a five year journey to explore the floating rocks of Krypton.

Here is part of the problem with that. In the end of Superman II? Superman promises the President he will never leave the world in the lurch like that again. So, if we are to understand this…Superman very quickly breaks that promise. Superman returns to earth and Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet…with nobody noticing the huge coincidence. Lois has a child who may be Superman’s (because they had sex in part 2) and has moved on, now dating Perry white’s son Richard White (James Marsden, in a move that caused Cyclops to be killed in X:3 due to scheduling needs). Clark struggles with this, and is bothered by an article written in the time he was gone called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”. In the meantime, Lex Luthor has been scheming by marrying an old wealthy widow who is on her deathbed. She gives Lex everything in her will, as the family stands outside pounding on the door. Why wasn’t Lex in Prison? Superman missed the trial because he left.

Lex goes back to the Fortress of Solitude and starts gathering the green crystals that contain Krypton’s records as well as ones similar to the crystal Clark used to build the Fortress in the first film. He also steals Kryptonite to facilitate a masterful crime. Well, not really. See, Superman is full of loving homages to the first two Superman films. This would not be a problem if it was done sparingly, but almost every shot seems to re-create Singer’s favorite things from the first movie. Clark running towards the camera ripping open his shirt? Of course you pay respects with that. But Lex Luthor making another land grab?! Arg. If they had started over, as a brand new Superman, they could have still used Kevin Spacey and done business man Luthor. Spacey could have defined the role that way. He is great in the role…

Superman saves the day in the end, as expected, but not without getting creepy. Superman keeps watch as he suspects Lois’ son is his son as well. Can we pause a moment and reflect on this. Superman wiped Lois’ memory of their time together. How frightening must it have been to be pregnant with no idea how you got pregnant? And Superman left shortly after, but his super hearing did not pick up on the forming child? Superman runs out on his pregnant girlfriend who he has removed any memory of…and now acts like a jilted ex-lover. It is an embarrassing storyline.

One thing this film does well is it’s actions scenes. Superman’s heroics are grand and exciting. Superman saves people with great feats of strength and heroism. The plane sequence is especially fun to watch.

I also really liked Brandon Routh. I felt that, considering what he was given in the story, he made the most of it. He is likeable most of the time, except those stalker moments. I was sorry to see that this film ended any chance he would return as Superman. If they had started over, we might have seen him begin a new and exciting franchise.

Superman Returns was a disappointing return, ironically enough. It did not revitalize a dormant franchise, it nearly put it to sleep.

August 15, 2016 0

The Quest for A Better Story (Superman IV: the Quest for Peace, 1987)

Superman III bombed heavily. Eventually, the rights were sold to Canon Films. Reeve had sworn off ever playing Superman again. But four years later he was back. In part, he was promised that he could be involved with the story. And the story we got was Superman getting rid of all our nuclear weapons. He puts them in a net and hurls them into the son. Gene Hackman is back as Lex Luthor…he gets busted out of prison by his dope of a nephew Lenny (Jon Cryer, looking like he stepped on the set of Hiding Out). His plan is to take advantage of Superman’s plan by using Superman’s DNA (from a strand of Superman’s hair) and get it in with the missiles. He succeeds and creates the weirdest enemy for Superman the screen has seen.

Nuclear Man is Luthor’s creation…and has Luthor’s actual voice. He is super strong, can fly, breathe in space, grow his fingernails long and sharp…he even scratches Superman and makes him sick. Nuclear Man has one weakness

In addition, there is a subplot where businessman David Warfield (Sam Wanamaker)and his attractive daughter Lacy (Mariel Hemingway) are buying the Daily Planet and want to turn it into a tabloid paper. Which would be a decent story-line if the Planet had ever shown itself interested in anything other than fluff pieces in the previous films.

Lacy starts to pursue Clark, while Lois still only has eyes for Superman. This leads to a double date sequence where Reeve keeps switching personas based on which woman he is visiting. Eventually Clark reveals himself to Superman (no worries, she forgets by the end through story magic). This plot feels problematic and unnecessary.

The return of Hackman does not improve the film, his character feels like a cartoonish version of the character he was. If Nuclear Man gave actor Mark Pillow any hope of a big movie career…it appears the film killed it.

This film is quite terrible, and using a plot where Superman solves such a real world issue as nuclear war…it just does not play effectively. The performers all feel like they are sleepwalking through the roles, with little more to say about them. The Quest for Peace really earned it’s terrible reputation. And it killed the Superman Franchise for almost twenty years.

August 12, 2016 0

Cut Rate Superman (Superman III, 1983)

Superman three came three years after Superman II, riding high on it’s success, but behind the scenes things looked bleak. There was a divide between some of the cast and the Salkinds over how they had treated Richard Donner. Kidder was not really feeling up to participating. To address this, Perry sends her off to the tropics, while sending Clark to do a story in Smallville at his High School Reunion.

Rally, this seems like a plausible idea. There is a rich cast of characters to draw from. And they draw from Clark’s past with introducing Lana Lang, played by Annette O’Toole (who was later brought on Smallville to play Martha Kent). O’Toole makes a fetching Lana Lang.

The other big addition to the cast was computer genius Gus Gorman. Played by comedy legend Richard Pryor, he gets a lot of blame from folks for this film. He plays his traditional nervous twitchy type of character. Except, I have a hard time pinning this on Pryor. Richard joked to Johnny Carson about wanting to be in a Superman movie. He felt the script was terrible…but the five million dollar paycheck was to good to pass up. Gorman is a computer super-genius who starts working for Ross Webster’s company. He writes a program that pays him fractions of cents that the company loses daily due to mathematical rounding up of numbers. He makes millions and is brought to the attention of Webster (played by Robert Vaughn). Webster and his sister Vera are schemers and want to take over the world. Ross also has his own Miss Tessmacher, Lorelei (Pamela Stephenson). Her primary purpose is some impressive cleavage. They use Gus to create a supercomputer and also work to get Superman out of the way. They manufacture Krytonite and use tar in place of an ingredient they cannot fine. The result is that Superman goes dark. He starts causing damage, being means, getting drunk. And then he fights Clark Kent in a junk yard. This is without a doubt the high point of the entire film.

Webster is like a second hand version of Lex Luthor, and the character has for less weight. You can see the giant hole left by not having Lex Luthor or a larger scale villain (such as Braniac, one character they thought about using in Superman III).

The smaller character moments are okay, like when Clark sees Lana’s son being bullied in a bowling alley and sneezes to shoot her son’s bowling ball into the pins. But for the most part, the film falls flat. It is not a very good film and Reeve swore off the role of Superman.

August 11, 2016 0

Bring on the Bad Guys (Superman 2, 1980)

Superman the Movie and Superman II were filmed back to back, but director Richard Lester came in when there was friction between the Salkinds and Donner. He threw out a lot of what Donner filmed and started over. Remember Zod and his Cronies? They are still floating through space in the Phantom Zone. When Superman thwarts a terrorist plot by launching a bomb into space, they are set free and make their way to earth.

Superman 2 is often held up as a standard of great sequels and a great super-hero film. Unfortunately, it is not. The film has Superman (and Zod, Ursa and Non) developing random powers and weapons. Their heat vision suddenly can be used as tractor beams, Superman’s logo can turn is a giant cellophane bag, they can shoot beams from their fingers.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some good points. The Villains are frightening at times. Terrance Stamp is menacing and arrogant, while Douglas plays Ursa with a disinterested flair. She is slightly amused by earthlings, but she could never care, she lacks all compassion.

There is a story in which Lois and Clark must pose as newlyweds. This leads to the reveal of Clark’s secret to Lois, which leads to them running off for romance. Superman and Lois hide away in the Fortress of Solitude, completely unaware of the arrival of the Kryptonian criminals. Superman realizes that to be with Lois, he must give up his power. He consults with his Mother Lara (well, a hologram of her and she shows him a machine that will bath him in the light of a red sun and make him human. You can see where this is going. When Lois and Clark start to make their way home, Clark tries to defend Lois at a cafe. A trucker beats the crap out of him. This moment is actually really well handled, Reeve really sells Clark’s startling realization that he is no longer the strongest man alive. But then Clark learns of Zod.

So, Superman’s human life is a short lived one. Even though the Fortress was damaged and he was told the process was irreversible… Clark gets his powers back off screen. This leads to a dramatic fight in the city. You know, for all the criticism Man of Steel gets for it’s destruction, Superman II has Superman carelessly throwing the criminals through building, the character beating each other into the ground and so on. There is little concern for the city.

One of the other good points is the duplicitous nature of Lex Luthor. Towards the beginning he breaks out of prison and then runs off to the Fortress of Solitude. He starts listening to the information from Lara…considering Lara can hold conversations with Superman, I am not sure why she cannot react to Lex. Luthor helps the Kryptonians attempt to take over the world (they promise to give him Australia). But when things look tough, he is quick to side with Superman (for Survival).

One of the big problems is the film has a Superkiss that robs Lois of her memories of who Superman is…and he also goes back to the cafe to humiliate the trucker. This is not Superman. And his character is tarnished for a joke. Superman II does not hold up, and is actually a weaker film than it’s predecessor. And more recent Super-hero films are vastly superior.

August 9, 2016 0

Young Superman(Superman the Movie, 1978)

Richard Donner’s Superman is often presented as a more upbeat and hopeful film than more recent Superhero efforts. And, in a lot of ways, it is a brighter view overall. Donner opens the film with life on Krypton. His version of Krypton has influenced countless versions of Superman. It became a ruling vision. And I get it…it is a society and world at it’s end. But the severely antiseptic frozen tundra look is actually unpleasant and does not really speak of an advanced society. Jor-El is introduced presiding over the trial of General Zod and his army. Well, him, Ursa and Non. Not really an army. What stands out was that in the middle of this trial, Zod tries to convince Jor-El to join him. And then they are zapped by a giant reflective record sleeve. Then, they never appear in the rest of the film.

Jor-El declare the planet is soon to die and is mocked by his fellow scientists who make him commit to staying on the planet. We all know the story, found by the Kents, young Kal El is raised as a typical Kansas kid. These moments are great. They show the thought the Kents have tried to install in their son. Clark’s struggle to not use his powers for only his gain is evident. Clark wants to be the football star and get dates with cheerleaders. But he also knows it would be a cheat to use his powers to succeed in that fashion. And when Pa Kent dies? Glenn Ford is barely on screen for any meaningful amount of time…and yet it is a real gut punch.

The Fortress of Solitude used to be a giant cave with a giant door. Now it is a spiky crystal building with no doors. Here he learns from holograms of his father. When he enters the world, he is ready to be Superman. One of the things Donner did right is that he fills the film with Superman…an it is Superman saving people over and over again. Sure, he stops crime as well, but saving people is his main gig.

Lois Lane is shown as a tough reporter (who cannot spell) who has little notice of new Reporter Clark Kent, but then swoons when Superman appears on the screen. This is not a negative, for one thing, she still follows her instincts when Superman shows up for an interview, clearly smitten with her. Kidder and Reeve have terrific chemistry in the film and Lois is fun and daring.

We are introduced to Lex Luthor via his bumbling lackey Otis. Ned Beatty is entertaining, though a bit over the top in his mindlessness. Hackman’s Luthor is a change from the comics of the time. He is still brilliant, but instead of super armor, he is simply a criminal mastermind. It is a bit over the top, but Hackman makes it work. The third spoke in the wheel is Valerie Perrine’s Miss Tessmacher. I am unsure exactly what her purpose is. I mean, Perrine is undeniably sexy in the role and appears in a variety of revealing outfits. But she seems distant for a girlfriend, and yet a lot of what she does is lounge around. She does play the role of “distraction”in part of Luthor’s plan. Oh, and that plan…

Luthor is planning to make a land grab…this becomes a running thing for him in the movies. He plans to blow California off the map and sell land. I do not see how this really would be an effective plan. Seriously, the guy who stole two missiles from the army and used them to blow up a sizeable chunk of land is going to be able to own and sell land?

Superman is a pretty fun movie with a really impressive cast. The weakest moment is the weird “Superman spins the earth to Fix Things. This was actually meant for the sequel, which Donner was already filming alongside this film. But the studio wanted him to use it to give this a big bang of an ending.

But all in all, Superman the Movie is a fun film for kids of all ages.

August 8, 2016 1

The Most Ultimate Edition

So, I took the time to watch the Ultimate Cut of Batman V Superman. And you know what? It is a great improvement. It was enough for me to consider the film enjoyable.

The added footage really enhances the story filling in the blanks. We now understand why Superman misses something that results in major death and destruction, and to cap it off, we see him helping locate survivors. Also, while I already thought Bruce Wayne’s introduction was one of the best sequences in the film, we get extra seconds to show Bruce’s dedication to helping survivors. This version also explains why Batman’s branding of criminals “results in a death sentence”. It is part of Luthor’s plan to manipulate Superman’s perspective on the Batman.

On top of that, while we got evidence of Lois Lane’s dedication to find answers, finally we see Clark actively doing investigative reporting into Batman, as well as the discover of Luthor’s reach in influencing public opinion towards some of Superman’s actions.

This is not to say all my concerns and criticisms are alleviated. For one, I really wish they would have Superman talk less like Earth is not his home. He has spent 99.9% of his life on Earth. Raise by citizens of earth. He sees them as mom and pa. He loves Lois. He still talks about Krypton as “My world” as if Earth is not also his world. Batman is a great detective, except where Luthor’s plan comes into play. Superman gives up trying to convince Batman to help him a little to quickly and goes into fight mode faster than Superman really should. Superman is not a dumb brute. And honestly, I cannot help but find the thing that gets Batman to pause is…their mothers are both named Martha. While that is certainly an interesting coincidence…but that that is the only thing that causes Batman to question his view on Superman seconds before killing him…oi.

But still, the Ultimate Version has made this a much better film, one I feel more confident in. If this had been the theatrical version, the list of my negative feelings would not be nearly as long. In addition, after watching the promo trailer for the upcoming Justice League, I am actually looking forward to seeing it. The preview has an interesting take on Aquaman, Flash looks like a brighter heroic addition to the DCU. Even Batman and Wonder Woman have some fun banter.

It is to early to state as fact of course, but the Wonder Woman trailer looks exciting and fun. It looks like the Wonder Woman movie people have been wanting for a long time. And if Suicide Squad is as fun as it looks…well, DC might have three winning films in a row. Four if you include the Ultimate cut, though “winning” might be a slight overstatement. But the future is showing a brighter potential for DC films.

July 30, 2016 0

Kevin Smith Was Right

No, really. Smith recently commented on Batman v Superman. He had the following to say:

“The movie I felt like didn’t really have a heart. It was certainly f—–’ humorless, there was nothing funny going on in that world whatsoever.”

And you know what? He is right.*

I get what Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan were trying to do. They were trying to make this major hard edged epic film. They were trying to make something that “transcended” popcorn and super-hero movies. When asked why there was no post credit scene in Man of Steel like Marvel does, Nolan scoffed and stated that real films do not do that. He walked it back a bit, but I suspect he meant it when he said it. And of course, Snyder can be endlessly quoted about the epic tone and nature he is trying to create for the DC Movie universe. That tone is big, full of grim consequence (though it is dishonest to pretend Marvel’s world lacks consequences, as the films are often having results that impact other films as well as their various television shows). This, of course makes it rather hilarious that Warner Brothers defended the critical reaction to the film by claiming it is just fun.

While I tried to remain spoiler free in my review? This is not going to avoid them. At. All. If you want to see the movie (or Man of Steel for that matter) yet, and do not want anything-including the end of the film-ruined? Stop reading.

Man of Steel was pretty problematic in how it set up Superman. First there was the whole troubling Johnathan Kent stuff. Johnathan had some genuinely great moments of fatherly kindness. When Clark asks if he can just keep pretending to be Johnathan and Martha’s son, and Johnathan responds with “You are my son.” That is a perfect moment. Yet, just moments before, Pa Kent suggests that maybe Clark should have let his fellow students die in a bus crash, rather than risk exposure. Rather than be saved by Clark, Johnathan lets himself be engulfed by a tornado. Clark could have saved him and they could have explained it to the towns folk in Smallville as…well, an amazing story of survival.

Clark does not appear in costume to the world until after Zod arrives. You might not think it matters, but trust me, it creates a problem for Batman v Superman. It would have helped the story immensely if Superman had some heroics before Zod arrived. It would build Superman up in the eyes of the public.

In Batman v Superman, we are first introduced to Bruce Wayne during the Superman and Zod fight. And this is, in fact a great scene. Wayne is shown as aggressively, passionately devoted to protecting his employees. He helps a man pinned by a beam, he saves a child from falling debris. This does set up an understandable distrust of Superman and Superman’s power. But when we meet his alter Batman…well, Batman has hit hard times. Batman has become bitter and vicious, now branding criminals with his batarangs. He is mired in bitterness and anger. Batman is kind of at odds with Bruce Wayne. Bruce is a man we see saving people. Batman is a guy brutalizing people and marking them for death.

This is not necessarily an entirely invalid presentation of the character. A lot of critics note how he shows little regard for killing people. And this is true, but the idea that he is to busy trying to fend off a whole lot of guys who are trying to kill him is pretty fair. It is kind of like asking why a soldier shot a bunch of guys shooting at him. Batman actually is mostly a fighter. And the scene where he saves Martha Kent? Awesome. When he tells Martha “I’m a friend of your son’s”? That is something I wanted to see in a movie featuring Batman and Superman.

But I digress, the problem with introducing us to this Batman as the entry into the new DC Cinematic Universe? We get hints of a backstory that implies Batman has been through hell and lost a whole lot. And yet, we are never introduced to the hero that Batman was, which would open doors to juxtapose with the hero he is now. It has no weight to simply hint that he has “gone through hell”. We needed to know Batman for this to resonate.

It is similar with Superman. We get brief shots of him coming in to save people in disasters. But we have not known Superman as Superman long enough for the questions about his “godhood” to come into play. And his alien nature is more heavily focused, how distant he is. Clark seems to have little humanity of his own, with Lois practically his sole tether to humanity. Although Snyder suggested killing Zod was to show why Superman abhors killing, one of our first acts of Superman in the present is to save Lois from a warlord by slamming into him at full speed pushing him through multiple walls, an act that most certainly would have killed the man. This was a terrific opportunity for the filmmakers to be creative in saving Lois from the guy in a non-lethal way, but they opted to have him casually take the guy out. So, killing Zod did not cause Superman to take preserving life all that seriously.But that is not what the scene is for. It is set to show Superman being setup as dangerous.

By giving us very little Superman time as hero? It pulls the rug from the potential emotion and ethical questions being posed. These are big questions, but we do not see enough of Superman as heroic savior to truly sell the hero worship that some people are supposedly rebelling against. We know there is distrust because the film makes a point of telling us there is. Superman does not seem to enjoy helping people in this universe. He seems to almost do it begrudgingly. He always looks so serious in the moments we see him saving anyone. Superman barely cracks a smile. There should be a juxtaposition between Superman and Batman in attitude. Superman should be questioning the methods of Batman. In an early John Byrne comic, there was a story where Batman and Superman first meet. In the comic, Batman forces Superman to help him by suggesting that he planted a bomb on an innocent person in the city. Superman is bothered by this…until he discovers that the innocent person was Batman himself. It was a really good moment in establishing their overall nobility and where they were ultimately on the same side. Superman is the beaming hope, Batman is the hero needed to deal with the darkness in life.

And yet, Man of Steel and Batman v Superman give us a Superman who is every bit as grim as Batman. One of the things that might have helped is if, in Superman and Batman’s first meeting, Superman had been less the authoritarian and more friendly guy trying to reason with Batman. Superman trying to reach out, being rebuffed by Batman would encourage Superman to be frustrated, as he cannot get through to Batman. Batman, of course, so distrustful that he has no time for what he misinterprets as a false piety.

Also, it would have been better, story-wise, for Superman to bristle at the God talk. He should have refuted that point, but whenever anyone calls him a God? He seems totally indifferent.

But there is nothing really separating Superman and Batman besides powers. Both are angry. Both are insolent and self centered. In fact, Batman (the greatest detective) and Clark Kent (the great investigative journalist) both are easily manipulated by Lex Luthor. Both are easily goaded into fighting. Superman at least has a decent reason, Luthor is threatening to kill his mom. Batman is sent off the edge by a package that pokes at his personal pain (the loss of his parents). He does not question it, he just assumes that it is time to take Superman out. Frankly, the inciting incident makes no damn sense. Luther sends in a guy to testify against Superman and the guy is basically a powerful bomb. This would appear like an assassination attempt on Superman, not like Superman acting as terrorist. But in Batman’s mind the right thing to do is not to try and determine who blew up the court room killing a countless number of people…it is, “Superman must be stopped.” This is a messy story point at best. It makes no damn sense for Batman to fall for this at worst.

Luthor is more than a bit of a mess. They were clearly trying to re-invent him as a new character we have never seen before…but it never comes together…he is to much the petty child, bitter and oblivious. They try and give him lines that make him sound like he has motivation, but the truth is? It all feels hollow. One bit of inspiration would have helped the character was to really invest him with a sense of nobility. A belief that he was really doing this to protect people from alien threats. That he distrusts aliens and therefor distrusts Superman. And that is not effectively done here. Eisenberg’s jittery performance leaves him feeling a lot less ominous. And he stoops to kidnapping and willing to kill Martha Kent (in a pretty clear nod to the Killing Joke, but substituting Martha Kent for Barbara Gordon and Lex for the Joker). It just makes Luthor seem cheap. I am not saying Luthor would not kidnap Martha. I am saying a strong Lex Luthor would not allow the kidnapping to be traced to him.

In my second viewing of the film, I found myself frustrated with Perry White. On the one hand, Fishburne has a lot of fun with the role. His reactions when he cannot find Clark Kent is some of the few times you get to laugh. But at the same time, Perry White being absolutely uninterested in hard news seems…wrong.

Honestly, there was no need to have flashbacks to Martha and Thomas Wayne being killed. That was so hammered into us in previous films and television…and nobody has found a way to make it feel like a necessary sequence.

Please understand, I wanted to totally be wrong about this movie. I wanted to believe maybe they cracked the code. And for a few moments at the beginning (aside from the unnecessary showing of the Waynes getting killed)? I thought we were on our way there. People have actually suggested the lack of humor is a good thing. It is taking the themes seriously. Except, humor is not only something we turn to in good times. In fact, we often turn to humor in tragic times.

As I have said, I do not think the film was an absolute disaster. I think the 29% Rotten Tomatoes rating is a bit overdoing it. And I do not have quite the hate for Snyder that some do. The visuals are nice. There are shots that, yes, inspire excitement. Cool shots of Superman and Batman…and Wonder Woman? She is great. She comes out of this unscathed. Part of that is the film barely develops her. But she is cool in the big fight with Doomsday.

Some critics, such as Kyle Smith of the New York Post claims that Batman v Superman is to smart for Marvel fans. Except, I am a Batman fan. I am a Superman fan. I am a Wonder Woman fan. I like these characters. But attempting to suggest that this film is just to heady for folks because it deals with big themes? Well, that ignores that it does not deal with the big themes very well. And Marvel films are constantly addressing the end results of what their heroes do. The attack in New York (from Avengers) was addressed in other Marvel Films and TV shows. The heroes constantly question what they have done. Age of Ultron was all about how far is to far to protect the world. Civil War is all about how people are afraid…the results of heroes running around without supervision. And we have seen Tony and Steve enough that we know those characters. We have gotten to know them. There is emotional punch to seeing them in conflict.

And in the end, that is what Frustrates me here. We have a Superman who does not really consider earth his home until the last moments of the film-right before he dies at Doomsday’s hands. And this Superman? We have barely known him as an audience. And we have known this Batman even less. If WB had been building up to this over the course of several films? Do you realize what a gut punch this movie might have been? We had Man of Steel and he is killed one movie later because Zack Snyder wanted him out of the way to allow Batman to build the Justice League. And it all feels far too calculated, there is no power to the beats of the film. If Ben Affleck’s Batman was one we were connected to prior to this film? It might have been very powerful. The film skates over this by giving fans iconic imagery to fall back on. Those great moments are not great because the film earns them, but rather the film cheats by expecting the audience to fill in the blanks with an excited reaction to “Scenes We Always Wanted to see!”

I wish that Batman v Superman was smarter than the Marvel movies. I wish it was as epic in it’s storytelling as it is in it’s visual representations of famous comic book panels and covers. I wanted the movie to be great. It thrilled me when early reports were that this was an awesome film, not anything like we feared. But when you can say “It is not as terrible as people say, but it was not that great” and it is a defense? Well, that is how folks defend a movie like God’s Not Dead. My first viewing of the film, I told someone that Marvel has nothing to fear at this point. My second viewing did not really change that.

I want WB to start making movies at least as Strong as the Avengers or Captain America: the Winter Soldier. This movie is not it. Maybe the extended cut Blu-ray will change my mind a bit…but I am not holding my breath at this point.

*Since I started writing this? Smith saw the film a second time and basically said he found the film’s heart…it was in the audience. And I am sorry…No. That is a terrible defense. The audience should not have to bring the heart to the film.

April 1, 2016 1

Super Pals In Conflict (Batman V Superman:Dawn of Justice, 2016)

This film has been both hotly anticipated and less than interesting depending on who you ask. In fact, the talk at the beginning of the week was that people had seen the movie and loved it. It was starting to look like Deadpool all over again. The early reaction made me wonder if my preconceptions were fair. Then, as the week progressed and more official reviews started to come out? It started to suggest my low expectations were warranted. Of course, I still felt I needed to see the film before declaring it a dud or success.

I am inclined to say it is better than the (at the last time I checked) 30% Rotten Tomato rating. But it is not truly great either. Clocking in at two hours and forty minutes, it is reaching for a standard of epic. Snyder and Nolan have emphasized that their films are different than those of Marvel. And it is true…the Marvel films, to a large extent, combine humor, adventure and suspense. Sure, some do it better than others. But they are lively fun films. Snyder has describe wanting his DC Cinematic Universe to be more epic Greek Myth.

Affleck actually works well in the role. There was plenty of online hemming and hawing…but Affleck’s Batman was pretty strong. Jeremy Iron’s Alfred worked very effectively for me. I enjoyed the larger screen time to Laurence Fishburne’s Perry White. He seems to be having a lot of fun as the tough Editor in Chief of the Daily Planet. I liked Amy Adam’s Lois Lane in Man of Steel, and she is just as good here. In spite of criticisms of the Man of Steel, I like Henry Cavill and feel he gives us the best Superman we can hope for given the material. I also liked when they focused on Lois and Clark’s relationship. I also enjoyed the brief time given to Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman and find myself looking to her solo film now.

The weakest link of the characters was Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. The character never feels as brilliant or as menacing as he should. Instead he just comes across as weird and quirky.

I can appreciate that they tried to make the destruction of Man of Steel a real sticking point that Superman has to face. That his heroics can even see negative results. This does really give a plausible motivation to Batman. The Batman we get in the film is cynical and has given up hope, rather than seeing Superman as that hope, he becomes determined to stop Superman. When Lex Luthor manipulates events, Batman falls over the edge. This actually works pretty well. It is an old comic book trope where two heroes meet, not realizing they are on the same side and fight, before realizing they are on the same side. The first Avengers film did this in very entertaining fashion in about five minutes. Here, Superman and Batman spend a majority of the film in distrust.

However, the film is just so packed with advance planning for the cinematic universe, they start forcing stuff into the film to prepare us. This also becomes confusing on telling apart dreams from memories from possible future events…at one point I was trying to determine if Bruce Wayne was having a potential prophetic vision. The film also lacks a strong central antagonist, and the introduction of Doomsday for the final battle just makes the film feel overloaded. The film feels bloated and confusing, and could use some streamlining.

It is also obvious that the criticisms of the Man of Steel’s massive destruction really stung Snyder. At points a general points out that they cleared an area, a newscast points out that the workday is over and everyone had gone home…Batman explains he chose a particular area for a fight because it was abandoned…the filmmakers really want you to know just how many people are not getting killed.

The movie is full of iconic visuals of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, and that is what they feel like. “Remember this panel from Dark Knight Returns?!” But they do not enhance the story. And Snyder’s cynical approach infects even the color grading. It is almost a dull and faded world. I am missing vibrant color in the DC Universe.

In the end, like Man of Steel…there are things I really did like. There are things I really did not care for. The film just misses the mark in a way that bums me out. I want to leave a movie starring Superman feeling hopeful and happy. I cannot say that here. The film never earns it’s deeper questions of hero worship and power, or the repercussions of Superman’s actions. I appreciate that they tried to aim for depth…it just is not as deep as they would like us to think it is.

March 25, 2016 1

Suicidal Glee

Folks are talking about the new Suicide Squad Posters…and drawing comparisons to the Superman V Batman posters.

Here is the new trailer:

Uh…and here is the most recent Batman v Superman:

Notice anything? Like the posters? The trailer for the Suicide Squad suggest an energetic and fun film. I was not sure how well the Suicide Squad would translate, after all, it is comprised of established bad guys from the DC Universe. There is a sense of goofiness amid the grit and violence. The attitude coming across is not grim.

Batman V Superman? It seems like a dour and angry affair. Nobody cracks a smile (aside from Lex Luthor). It is trying so hard to scream “Epic”, it misses that there should be cheer. It should be inspiring.

Suicide Squad (like Deadpool) is showing a gritty violent side paired with a wink and a smirk. A bit of joy, almost. Batman v Superman? It pairs gritty and dark violence with a joyless intensity. And I wonder how that can be. How is it that the band of bad guys forced to be heroic looks way more fun than Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman???

January 21, 2016 0

Direct Sequel vs Kinda a Sequel

Zack Snyder has commented that in his mind, Batman V Superman is actually the Man of Steel Sequel. There is a Man of Steel 2 on the Warner Brothers slate-with talk of George Miller directing (which would be exciting)-but Zak really feels this is the true follow-up.

And this feels like it is becoming an issue with both Marvel and DC films.

In the early days, the Marvel stand alone films were allowed to focus on the hero. There might be a cameo, or a supporting role (Black Widow in Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier). But the films were primarily focused on the hero’s journey, while the larger Avengers story-line might be lightly hinted at.

But Captain America: Civil War seems to be suffering the same problem as Batman v Superman… so stuffed with heroes, it feels more like “Avengers: Infinity War-Prologue”. They are feeling less like proper films in a franchise and more like the setup films. Adding Spider-Man to Civil War only enhances that.

I kind of get what they are doing with Batman v Superman, because Warner Bros has been playing catch-up after trying to determine how to get that Avengers cash without totally looking like they are trying to copy the the actual Avengers formula.

So we are getting long movies full of heroes, all while they give less and less room for the title character. Part of what I enjoyed about both Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy was they had connections to the greater shared universe they inhabit without losing their own spirit.

I worry both DC and Marvel will be making it near impossible to allow even their solo movies to be focused on the hero whose name occupies the Title Card.

September 22, 2015 2