Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

So, Warner Brothers announced their latest superhero movie, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) and the internet exploded. Certainly, this was a match that DC comics fans have been anticipating for years. I, however, like many others, objected to it as more information was released about it. I truly could not see this movie being any good. It seemed that Warner Brothers was making a foolhardy attempt to catch up with Disney Marvel Cinematic Universe in a short amount of time by throwing a bunch of DC heroes into one movie all at once. After seeing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I still hold that opinion. However, I didn't think the movie was nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

Following his titanic struggle against General Zod, Metropolis has been razed to the ground and Superman (Henry Cavill) is the most controversial figure in the world. While for many he is still an emblem of hope, a growing number of people consider him a threat to humanity, seeking justice for the chaos he has brought to Earth. As far as Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is concerned, Superman is clearly a danger to society. He fears for the future of the world with such reckless power left ungoverned, and so he dons his mask and cape to right Superman's wrongs. The rivalry between them is furious, fueled by bitterness and vengeance, and nothing can dissuade them from waging this war. The tension between them is further fueled by the conniving Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who is launching his own crusade against the Man of Steel. However, a new dark threat arises in the form of a third man: one who has a power greater than either of them to endanger the world and cause total destruction!

There was just too much revealed about this movie in the trailer. It left virtually no surprises for the movie to show us. It showcased what was surely supposed to be a major reveal toward the end of the movie by having Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) show up in the trailer and have the three face off against something that looks remarkably like Doomsday. That ruined so many of the surprises that Batman v Superman had to offer. Really, if you know anything about the DC comic universe, you know that if Doomsday shows up anywhere, you can pretty accurately guess how the story is going to end. The trailer showed us too much and it weakened what the movie had to offer that was good. I want to meet the marketing team behind this movie and give each one of them a firm slap across the face.

Batman v Superman evens out to be a decent movie; it has a lot of bad in it, but it does deliver some great material as well. Let's start off with Batman. Affleck was publicly announced to play the part of Batman in this movie, and the internet exploded. So many people were enraged by this, and reasonably so, especially after that really, REALLY terrible Daredevil movie he starred in back in 2003. I understand that so many people were outraged by Affleck playing Batman that his agent advised him to stay off of Twitter for a few weeks. But, Affleck ended up being amazing! I thought it would be a good number of years before anyone would be brave enough to don the role after Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. This was a new take on Batman, one that was damaged, and had changed his moral code just enough to be new without changing what we all love about the character. This made him very hardcore and fascinating. If Warner Brothers plays their cards right, this would make for a strong center for a new solo film with Affleck as Batman.

The action and cinematography in general was fantastic. The story here may not be so good, but let no one say that director Zach Snyder doesn't know how to move a camera. The camera work was beautiful, the scenery and visual effects were stunning, and nearly everything looked pretty darn fantastic. Only once or twice did I ever get drawn out of the movie experience to go "eh, that could have been polished up a bit better" or have the cameras angels in post-editing change so fast as to leave me behind and wonder what just happened. The action scenes were intense, and looked incredible.

One of the concerns I had about The Avengers movie was that they were going to mash together a bunch of major characters, give one or two of them a bulk of the screen time, and leave everyone else as half-baked characters. This was my concern with Batman v Superman as well, more so because only Superman had one movie prior to this, Man of Steel. Any other characters being introduced for the first time could not possibly get the amount screen time to be fleshed out enough for their big screen debut. This was kind of what happened with Wonder Woman. By the end of the movie we still don't get a real sense of who she is or what she's about. However, this movie revolved mostly around Superman and Batman, so that's somewhat forgivable. She still played a significant part in the end, but she wound up as a token female superhero, which is really too bad. Given the small role she had, Wonder Woman was pretty good for what she was. I think that a more brief appearance of her would have been better. Don't misunderstand, I want to see Wonder Woman in a movie; I just think it would have been better to leave her as a hinted at cameo, as was done with other Justice League characters who make very brief appearances.

I didn't like this portrayal of Superman. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, but I was never convinced of that here. There was a montage that seemed to be trying to tell me that he is a symbol of hope, but I just couldn't buy it. The tone of this story is too dark, this depiction of Superman is controversial within his own storyline, and the brightness of hope didn't seem to have a place in this movie. It was more of a Batman movie that happened to have Superman in it. The two characters are thematically opposite and the two clashing themes don't fit together well in the same movie. It could have worked in the right hands, but it just didn't work out well here. Then the whole motivation for Superman to be fighting Batman was hard to swallow; Batman's motive was very clear and understandable, Superman's motive was that the poorly developed script said it would be neat to see them fight. The two were basically one short conversation away from understanding one another, but they duked it out instead.

The story in Batman v Superman was as messy as I feared it would be. During the opening credits we get a rehash of the all too familiar origin of Batman which was really well done and featured minimal dialogue. Then we go to the first scene, which tells us a little bit of story, then it switches to another scene to start another storyline, and it keeps switching back and forth every five minutes or so, making it frustrating to keep track, and not giving us enough information before switching back. On top of this, the overall story moves very quickly and it's easy to get lost if you aren't paying very close attention. Batman had some visions or dreams of what I assume were the future and took them as hard evidence. While some were kind of cool, they didn't make any kind of sense. Perhaps it's hinting at a bigger story arc that spans multiple movies? If so, they were made to appear much more significant to current events than what they were. It's too soon for that since we're just now introducing a bunch of characters. There are so many plot holes in this movie I'd like to discuss, but I want to avoid further spoilers that the trailer didn't already spoil for you. Suffice it to say, the story needed work.

Lex Luthor was a major disappointment. Jesse Eisenberg may be a good actor, but he's not a good Lex Luthor. Luthor is supposed to be an ordinary human, albeit one with a strong, commanding presence. This Lex Luthor was an energetic squirrelly little twerp that more closely resembled the socially inept Mark Zuckerberg (that Eisenberg played in The Social Network) who had finally snapped and went crazy. He just looked too young and silly to play a decent Luthor. Doomsday truly felt shoehorned in at the last minute; I could see studio executives insisting on including him to excite fans into wanting to see the movie. The origins of Doomsday in this movie were not canonical and in fact, made no sense at all. It could have been a great story arc, but as was the case with the inclusion of Wonder Woman, there was no real story around him and he mostly shows up to excite fans and destroy some property.

There are many hints dropped thoroughout the movie to tease at and suggest the upcoming superhero alliance of The Justice League. Yeah, those were exciting to see. But they're doing it all backwards. Marvel had the wherewithal to introduce characters individually in their own movies before putting them all together. That allowed us to know who each of The Avengers were right from the start and proceed with character and plot development for the story in which they were gathered together. For the DC movies here, many characters are thrown together, few are given enough screen time for us to care about, others are mere cameos, and we as movie goers are not given context for why we should be excited about them. We should see a Wonder Woman movie, an Aquaman movie, a Flash movie, and maybe some others before throwing them all together, or else the resulting story about their union will have to spend too much time explaining who they are and what they're about and not have enough time for a fleshed out, compelling narrative. I'm curious to see if these DC movies can prove me wrong and deliver something well done and interesting, or if I'm right and the series will fall apart from weak story and characters before it can get going. Batman v Superman has it's good points, but it's not a very good start to a series of movies.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was much better than I feared it would be. Ben Affleck as Batman was positively amazing! The visual effects were stunning, the action was riveting, and the cinematography was gorgeous. The villains were a considerable disappointment. The story and pacing was a bit of a mess, even if it was a fun mess. And the movie felt bloated with all the hints at things to come in future movies, about half of which could have been left out to avoid unnecessary confusion. Overall, I think the movie was good, just not great. It could have been better, but it could have been a whole lot worse and I am grateful that it wasn't. I urge you not to veto this movie because Ben Affleck played Batman, nor because Warner Brothers isn't going about their Superhero team up movies as well as Marvel did. Give it a shot; you may like it. I think this is worth seeing on the big screen if you're a DC comics fan; it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours. If you're not such a big fan of DC, maybe wait for this on home video.

What do you expect to see from future DC/Justice League movies? Do you have high hopes? Do you think they'll deliver a decent set of movies based on Man of Steel and Batman v Superman? Avoid spoilers, but tell me what you think!

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Review

Under the best of circumstances I'm not a fan of spy movies. They tend to boast a lot of senseless action with a half-baked story so convoluted it's often hard to know who you're supposed to be rooting for. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) is based on the 1964 television series by the same name. The trailer was just interesting enough to draw me in. The movie itself stuck so fast and true to spy movie tropes that it ultimately won't stand out among other spy films, try as it might.

At the height of the Cold War, a mysterious criminal organization plans to use nuclear weapons and technology to upset the fragile balance of power between the United States and Soviet Union. CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) and KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) are forced to put aside their hostilities and work together to stop the evildoers in their tracks. The duo's only lead is Gabriella "Gaby" Teller (Alicia Vikander) the daughter of a missing German scientist, whom they must find soon to prevent a global catastrophe.

Initially I thought that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was an original film. I hadn't heard of the TV series at all, and I like to think myself reasonably well acquainted with "vintage" pop culture. The series ran for a good four years and earned a number of Emmy and Golden Globe awards. I have never seen the series, but as I understand it, the film strays from the television show enough that viewers unfamiliar with the original series will still follow its twisting intrigue and understand its nods to other spy satires.

The cast was pretty good overall. I'm not familiar with the leading lady yet, though she did quite well. Apart from her, we've basically got Superman and The Lone Ranger trying to outperform each other. Henry Cavill really shines in this movie and Armie Hammer and his Russian accent tries to keep up. Cavill has got all the charm of a Bond, all the intelligence of a Sherlock, and the leading man potential of Superman. Cavill does some death-defying feats, impresses the ladies, is saving the country, and doing it all with not a spot on his suit or a hair out of place. Cavill has chemistry with pretty much every single person that graces the screen next to him - even the ones who don't actually speak.

Like so many spy movies, there's lots of intrigue and deception. This usually looses me somewhere around the second plot twist, but in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. everything is played by the book and I could ultimately predict where who was going to double-cross who and where allegiances lie. While this caused the story to be predictable and by extension somewhat bland, it was kind of nice to have a spy story I can easily keep up with. There's plenty of spy movie tropes that end up being major plot devices and results in an unremarkable story with some decent scenes here and there.

The trailer for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. used a lot of gratuitous shots of women as romantic interests or eye candy alone. Including a one brief shot of a woman who is naked except for a pair of underwear (and only shown from the back, of course). This misleads us to think there's lots of nudity and sex. While there is implied sex, nothing is ever shown on screen. And the aforementioned near-nude shot is as risqué as it gets. The content of the movie stays within in its PG-13 rating, though some parents may not approve of what short bits of nudity do make it on screen. I also don't think that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. should be written off as a hyper-masculine, anti-feminist film. Gaby is as integral to Solo's mission as Kuryakin is. Gaby is a woman in the traditionally masculine role of car stunt-savvy chauffeur, and even that is far from her only role.

There are a number of funny scenes in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I wasn't expecting that. It really is funny to watch Kuryakin and Solo try to outshine each other. They frequently catch each other trying to plant bugs on their mission partner. When trying to break into an enemy compound, the two go out of their way to make the other jealous of their superior spy equipment. The speed boat scene is probably my favorite; Kuryakin is driving the boat being pursued by enemy henchmen and doesn't notice Solo fall out of the boat. Solo swims ashore, takes out a guard, and casually eats the guard's lunch while watching Kuryakin be shot at and fail to lose his pursuers. The comic relief was very welcome, but didn't do enough to elevate the overall quality of the story.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a decent spy movie that sticks to tried and true spy movie tropes and  it will probably be lost and forgotten among the other spy movies out there before too long. It's as if it tries too hard to make itself similar to other movies and it doesn't give itself a chance to shine. The cast is great and the sets and locations are superb, but the movie tries to distract from its unremarkable story with talented and charismatic stars, glitzy sets, and action scenes. This adds up to an uneven action thriller with just enough style to overcome its lack of substance. If you're into spy movies, it's worth seeing. But it's so unremarkable, that it's not worth the price of a ticket. It's a renter.

What are some of the best spy movies you've ever seen? Comment below and tell me why!

Man of Steel Movie Review

A couple of years back, someone decided to ignore the Superman 3 and 4 movies because those were terrible, and pick up the Superman movie franchise where it left off. Superman Returns was a pretty bad attempt at picking up the franchise. So, rather than continue beating a dead horse, Zack Snyder directed a series reboot. Man of Steel (2013) restarts the whole story from square one. While I'm not really a big Superman fan, I think this is the Superman movie we've needed for some time.

The planet Krypton faces imminent destruction due to its unstable core, resulting from years of exploiting Krypton's natural resources. The Ruling council is overthrown by the rebel military leader, General Zod (Michael Shannon), and his followers. Scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) launches his infant son Kal-El on a spacecraft to Earth to escape Krypton's annihilation, though Zod swears to hunt down the boy. Kal-El is found and raised on Earth by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Kiane Lane) who give him the name Clark Kent. Due to Earth's sun's radiation having unusual effects on young Clark's alien physiology, he develops extraordinary powers which he keeps secret for fear of how Earth's people will react to him. As an adult, Clark (Henry Cavill) roams the earth trying to find out about his mysterious origins. Along the way he encounters firecracker reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who is also researching unusual occurrences for The Daily Planet. But before long, General Zod finds Kal-El on Earth and begins an invasion, meaning to wipe out its inhabitants.

We've never had a Superman story like this. The previous Superman movies revolve around a normal human who has pitiable physical abilities compared to Superman's god-like powers (usually Lex Luthor) who is trying to manipulate Superman or get him to break his unbreakable willpower. The issue is never "Can Superman stop him?" it's more like "Can Superman stop him fast enough to keep casualties to a minimum?" While that is an interesting problem for Superman to face, it's all that has ever been done in Superman movies. They've also remained very terrestrial; we are told briefly that Superman is an alien, but it isn't really expounded upon or explored.

Man of Steel starts out on Krypton, and we get to see quite a bit of it. We don't just get a glimpse; we get to understand the political climate, we get a feel for the culture and history, and a sense of what Kryptonians are like. Later when General Zod invades Earth, we see spaceships, weapons, and all sorts of crazy alien technology. I like how the reason for why Kryptonians develop super powers is established and how the sensory overload really disturbs and weakens them until they learn to adapt to the physical changes. In a flashback we see young Clark Kent in school when he is overcome by his x-ray vision and super hearing. The boy curls up in a fetal position, coving his ears, and tries to block the sensory overload. It looks a lot like an autistic child having a meltdown. The setting is so much more detailed, and it is developed steadily throughout the movie. That alone shows how well Man of Steel was written.

The characters were well written, too. Kal-El isn't really called "Superman" in the movie, which was a delightful detail. Kal-El is a very human character and is very easy to relate to. He was raised by some very good parents who instilled in him a strong sense of morality and  righteousness, but they also encouraged him to keep his powers a secret because none of them knew how the people of Earth would react to him being so different. This really illustrated the "alien immigrant" nature of Superman's character, the fear and uncertainty about being different is something anyone can relate to. In spite of his moralistic upbringing, Kal-El is faced with situations that no parents from a farm in Kansas could ever have prepared their son for. Trying to figure out what is the best thing to do isn't easy, and we get to see that realistic weakness of character in Kal-El. Also, never ever threaten Clark Kent's mother. Just saying.

It was also neat how the human characters acted as heroes, not just weaklings incapable of defending themselves. One of my favorite scenes is when Lois is being advised by the holographic program of Jor-El on the Kryptonian spaceship on how to avoid or defeat the Kryptonians as she makes an escape. Lois is not a damsel in distress; she's a strong, brave, and a very intelligent woman who is able to hold her own even when up against god-like aliens. Kal-El might have been able to stop the villains, but since the human protagonists help and support Kal-El, more people are saved even if they cannot confront the villains themselves.

My only real complaint about Man of Steel is the amount of action sequences there were. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes were great and have the magnitude that a Superman movie deserves. But there was very little time for the audience to recuperate after an intense action scene. It's like there's a crazy action scene followed by a crazy action scene which is followed by yet another crazy action scene. They were good, no doubt about it, but at some point the novelty of seeing these super powered people being flung through buildings wears off and it left me thinking that the movie could cut back on the action scenes a bit and that it doesn't have to make everything so exaggerated and crazy. There's even a point in the movie where everything has basically been resolved and the movie could come to an end, but yet another over-the-top fight scene begins. There is lots of story to tell and some great characters to develop, but if an action movie actually makes you stop and think, "Really? Another fight scene? Is this scene even necessary?" then the movie has probably gone too far. The action is great, but I feel as though less could have been more in this case.

Man of Steel showed us an expanded Superman universe, the likes of which we have not seen before and probably was not possible until recently. It's a decent movie that focuses on setting and characters. It's well written and manages to tell the story logically and gradually. It is a bit choppy at the beginning, but doesn't lose the audience. The action is great and lots of fun, but the movie would have benefited from cutting back on the number of the action scenes. Man of Steel is worth catching in theaters. I'm not even a Superman fan and I enjoyed it. I was teetering on whether or not it's worth buying a copy, but I think I can safely say this is worth owning on Blu-Ray.

There have been a lot of actors who have played Superman. Christopher Reeve is easily my favorite. Who is your favorite Superman? Comment below and tell me why!