Skip to main content

Nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
(2016)

(SPOILERS) You probably need to be sufficiently invested in the DC Universe in the first place to truly care about its cinematic desecration. Or even notice it. Much has already been said, and continues to be said – far more than any right-minded person can or should keep up with – over the past week about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, how it defecates all over the legacy of Superman and isn’t even really doing Batman many favours, but that’s rather beside the point. Zach Snyder’s movie doesn’t fail because of its take on these iconic characters; it fails because it’s an abject mess in its approach to basic storytelling. 


For a while there, before Batman and Superman engage in their less than titanic tussle, I was beginning to think Snyder and screenwriters Chris Terrio and David Goyer were going for something almost admirable in its flagrant disregard for convention; a two hour-plus movie composed entirely of two-minute (or less) scenes with virtually nothing to connect them. Perhaps this was to be the superheroic equivalent of Godfrey Reggio’s Qatsi trilogy? Alas, they eventually confound any illusions of eccentric artistry by reverting to something that does, sort-of, make sense. The chief problem, however, is that, amid this carnage wreaked upon narrative structure, they maintain one element of consistency; BvS is never in danger of becoming a good movie.


Which isn’t to say I have particularly passionate feelings pro or con about the movie. The complete picture turns out to be precisely as it was the trailers, only spread over 150 minutes. The problem is, trailers are supposed not to tell a story; they’re simply there to provide the appetiser for one. If you try and tantalise audiences for any longer, you’ll likely end up with unpalatable mush. I didn’t come away feeling there was very much actively terrible about BvS, but neither did I feel there was very much actively great about it. And what’s in between constitutes its biggest sin; it’s determinedly dull. Incredibly pretty (well, when it’s not focusing on Doomsday, seemingly the spawn of Alien Resurrection’s newborn and thus a design feat no one should be boasting about), but incredibly boring.


Shilly-shallying with a plot summary isn’t really necessary, but the manner in which Snyder et al have reverse-engineered the negative reaction to Supes’ Man of Steel destruction derby and made it the focus of the sequel is perversely impressive (no, no, Goyer and Snyder planned it all along). And then, as some would have it, they go even further, so compounding their earlier transgressions. 


It has been suggested this Superman, off-beam (and don’t those laser eyes chafe so?) from his traditionally selfless mode of oozing virtue from every pore, is a reflection of Snyder’s fascination with Ayn Rand, and his (presumed) concordant belief that those who achieve through devout selfishness should be justly rewarded (as such, when Superman acts selflessly, he must die, and maybe come back as a monster). Or maybe Superman is merely a symbol for modern America, doing what he thinks is right and being vilified for it (but one day, one day, everyone will see the truth). Or maybe Snyder just hates Superman, which seems to be the most vocal conclusion reached.


I’m not quite sure how to gauge that, as I don’t really know – or sufficiently care, truth be told –  enough about the line being crossed with this depiction. Which is to say, it’s not as if Batman could be considered well hung here either. Indeed, I was marvelling throughout at – given some of the pre-viewing criticism I’d dipped into – how much better Superman came across than Batfleck. I mean, the former may not have been on the best of form, or awarded a welter of cool moments, but neither did he come across as a tunnel-visioned moron.


Perhaps you have to be American to really get behind Superman. A paragon of virtue isn’t really a good fit for the nation that brought the world Terry-Thomas, the ultimate cad and frightful-est bounder. I’m certainly one of those who was never remotely taken with the character, which might be why I liked the Reeve incarnation most when he was put on a back foot (made human in Superman II) or had to duke it out with his dark side (Superman III). Or when you wheel on a charismatic (English) villain to give the whole enterprise a bit of pep (tell him Terence Stamp is fucking coming!)


Henry Cavill’s fine as Superman – although he’d be better as Bond – and there are more decent Superman scenes in the movie than there are Batman ones, although there are more decent Wonder Woman scenes than there are decent scenes for either of the headliners, so she definitely rules the roost (that at least is one in the eye for those complaining about Gal Gadot’s casting and her general lack of Lynda Carter-ness).


I liked Superman’s heroic montage as he rescues floundering rockets and idiots genuflect before his perceived messianic purity. I liked his turning up at the Committee hearing, unrecalcitrant. I liked when he was blown up by a nuclear warhead, hanging emaciated in space. And I (well, not completely, but at least it was him rather than Batman) liked his final self-sacrifice (although I have no idea how Clark Kent’s going to explain away not being dead; perhaps he’ll wake up in a shower. Of which, showing its influences, Man of Steel-sort-of-not-II invites unflattering comparisons by aping Star Trek II’s funereal bagpipes). But there is an underlying sense that making him a moody sod limits the palate the DC cinematic Universe has to play with. You miss Reeve’s essential affability (and Cavill can do affable – in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. he’s one long affable).


Added to which, Superman doesn’t necessarily come across as all that bright. I know movies and TV have to consistently pull the trope of the hero’s dilemma, the choice between the one they love and the greater good, but Luther kidnapping Clark’s mum is so hackneyed, he really should have contemplated and planned his response to such an inevitable eventuality.


But however dense Supes is, Batfleck is doubly so. And then some. People seem to have taken to Ben’s incarnation of the Caped Crusader, so maybe this won’t leave him with Gigli all over his face, but it’s not through want of the screenwriters trying. I don’t for one moment buy into Wayne’s grim motivation to have at Superman (which maybe why Alfred – a decent Jeremy Irons – is so dismissive of his intentions). You can at least see why Superman would be in a bit of a turmoil (if he wasn’t more than a mere mortal and above such things), but the attempts to steer Batman towards the status of ever-branding bad guy fail to connect, no matter how many times the movie rehearses the death of his parents and has him ramble on darkly about what he has to do.


Everything about Bat-Bruce’s goal here makes him look like the biggest chump ever, be it his “If there’s a one-per-cent chance” desire to make sure the Man of Steel doesn’t get the option of going bad, to his training montage with really BIG weights, to his leading Doomsday back into the city at the climax (they even have to insert a line clarifying that he isn’t doing exactly what Superman was guilty of in Man of Steel; the showdown takes place on highly fortuitous disused dockland, so that’s okay), to his bizarre turnabout on hearing his dearly beloved ma’s name (the effect is as rampantly ridiculous as the cry of “Cleaning woman!” in Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid). And, while Affleck’s personification of Bruce Wayne as a playboy cocksman is moderately entertaining, having the hots for Wonder Woman and all, they definitely missed a trick not having him hit on Superman’s mum.


All that said, Batman in action here is far, far cooler than anything Bat-related we’ve seen on the big screen over the past quarter of a century. We’ve gone from a director (Burton) with no facility for bat-tle, to ones (Schumacher and Nolan) who appreciated it but tended to suck all the coherence out of it. You have to go all the way back to Adam West wrestling a shark for anything of this order. It’s just a shame what’s on display is in the service of such tepid material (there’s a huge car chase at one point, and you’re left unmoved, not because it’s hard to follow but because there’s no engagement with its purpose or intent).


But. I did enjoy the Lex party scene, with everyone in their civvies up to their own investigative work (although as has been pointed out, if Superman can eavesdrop with his super-hearing why not use his x-ray vison too – probably because you run out of things to do with a character with no limits very quickly). 


Of which, I’m torn on Luthor. Jessie Eisenberg is supremely punch-able, but then that’s the point. I half-liked what he was doing, but he needed more of the genius thing going on to counterbalance the m-m-m-mental rich kid (presumably his being m-m-m-mental is the excuse for why he doesn’t just expose the trio’s identities to the world?). We only really glimpse a proper display of smarts when he is birthing Doomsday. I seriously doubt Bryan Cranston in his stead would have been the night and day difference in making the picture work that much better.


The dawning of justice? Well, Gadot undoubtedly has star power, you can tell as much because her role mostly amounts to giving knowing looks and she still makes an impact. Diana Prince and her alter-ego get off lightly, I suspect, simply because they aren’t around for long enough to take a knock in terms of character or motivation. None of the others DoJ-ers make much of an impression, in their brief snippets, although Ezra Miller is inspired superhero casting (and yet, I had no idea he was future-Flash-in-red in Bruce’s dream). Joe Morton was evidently cast as a reference to his T2 scientist, while Neil deGrasse Tyson whores himself out again, but to diminishing returns in the wake of Zoolander 2.


Debates will continue to rage over just what DC is doing to its icons, even if that amounts to little more than making the grim-smart Batman grimmer still but also wholly dumber with it, and the stalwart-and-true Superman ever more introverted and less honest-and-open. But – and it’s not such a cop-out in terms of finding little to wail and gnash teeth over – was this ever going to be anything other than a display of dour, over-stuffed, incontinent posturing? Its consequences of audience interpretation feel more the result of dramatic ineptitude and tonal misjudgement than manifest intent (and I suspect that’s true even of Superman, no matter what his most ardent adherents have to say against Snyder’s dark-seedings). The fallout of which can already be seen in the backtracking on the DC Universe’s love affair with tortured seriousness and the post-Deadpool embrace of (likely short-lived) anything-goes-as-long-the-audience-think-it’s-something-different (which definitely won’t be the R-rated cut of BvS).


Mostly though, I was left feeling profoundly indifferent towards the movie. You can only do so much baiting if you haven’t hooked the audience in the first place. That’s – largely – why Marvel has been on such a winning streak. They’re past masters at getting the balance right. I’m not interested in the multiple Superman and Batman flashbacks, or the extended interlude of Darkseid dreams – which may or may not, more likely not, given Warner Bros already appear to be lightening up Suicide Squad, come to pass (that said, unless they’re planning on a Highlander-esque relationship between Superman and his Blossom, Lois Lane, decade-older-than-Cavill Amy Adams will surely be compelled by the Hollywood law of averages to exit before long). They end up as a string of narrative non-sequiturs.


In many respects, the highlight of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL’s score, which consistently offers an distinctive diversion, so directly contrasting with the onscreen action, from the harpsichord accompanying Luthor’s aberrant activities to Wonder Woman’s rousing electric cello. To wit the latter (Wonder Woman, not the rousing electric cello), if nothing else, the clash of DC’s top two has ensured an appetite for her solo debut, so that’s one thing the movie gets kudos for. There won’t be many coming its way for anything else.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…