Though I haven’t seen all the movies presented, there’s one sequel among them that I feel deserves special attention: Ghostbusters 2.
Released in 1989 (the beloved original film was released in 1984), this sequel featured all the leads from the first movie, including Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Sigorney Weaver, and Rick Moranis…
…and, IMHO, it sucked.
I know there are those out there who are moaning about the Ghostbusters remake featuring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, but I never felt that kind of hatred because in the back of my mind I remember sitting in the theaters back in 1989 eagerly waiting for Ghostbusters II to start and, by the time the movie reached its silly climax, being so damned deflated.
According to rottentomatoes.com, the original Ghostbusters (1984) scores an incredibly high 97% positive among critics, 88% positive among audiences while Ghostbusters II scores a far weaker 50% positive among critics and a slightly higher 61% positive among audiences.
Though there were clearly those who disagree with my opinion, Ghostbusters II just wasn’t for me.
Nonetheless, I entered the theater back in 1989 optimistic the film would be good and, as I sit here in 2016 I hope the new iteration of Ghostbusters winds up being a fun comedy. It certainly can’t be any worse than Ghostbusters II.
Yesterday I re-reviewed Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (you can read my review here) and noted there seemed to be a hard edged anger against it out there. While films often elicit differing reactions, it seems like those who don’t like BvS really, really hate the film and some have gone way out of their way to slam it and those who do like the movie.
Well, the opposite seems to be happening with Captain America: Civil War (CA from now on).
The film, which is due to be released on May 6th, has experienced almost the exact opposite of BvS in terms of expectations. While many were absolutely certain well before its release that BvS would be “terrible”, a very large number of people expect CA to be nothing less than fantastic.
Early word from advanced screenings seemed to confirm these positive thoughts. Further, the earliest reviews were quite good.
But not every one of them.
Rottentomatoes.com currently lists 18 reviews for CA and of these, 17 are positive and only 1 is negative. In my comments yesterday regarding BvS I said things were getting “personal” to those who hated the film. It now appears things are getting personal the other way regarding CA and fury descends on any who dare to speak negatively about that film.
The below link is to the single negative CA review presented thus far. It was written by Michael Fairbanks and appears on theyoungfolks.com:
Frankly, I found this a well reasoned and intelligently written review even though it might wind up, to me, being all wrong (I very much look forward to seeing CA and hope it is at least in the same ballpark as the fantastic Captain America: Winter Soldier).
What is most striking about the review was that the author was clearly going into the film with high expectations and found, in the end, it didn’t quite reach the level he hoped for. Mr. Fairbanks laments this while presenting very specific reasons why he found the fim disappointing. In the end, he gives the film a mediocre “C”. While hardly a devastating grade and only one review from one person, one would think based on the comment section following the review that Mr. Fairbanks just insulted everyone’s mother while simultaneously kicking their brand new puppy.
The negative responses to this review border on the hysterical and were apparently so overwhelming and (I can only imagine) vicious the editors of the site closed the comments section and posted the following:
Due to the overwhelming response to this review, comments are temporarily closed. We take comment moderation seriously and will be going through each comment to ensure it does not violate our Comment Policy.
Sheesh.
I repeat what I said yesterday: Things are getting mighty personal out there regarding superhero films and opinions of the same. For what its worth, the above review remains as of this day the only negative one CA is drawing and, for all we know, it might be the only one it draws.
It is also quite possible and even more likely there will be other critics and, indeed, common audiences that don’t find CA quite as good as others may.
It is rare I get a chance to see a film in theaters and even rarer -bordering on the unheard of- for me to see a film twice while it is in theaters yet that is what happened yesterday with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from now on).
Since the film’s release only a few short weeks ago, a curious thing’s happened: There are many who appear to be taking this movie mighty personally.
When the movie neared release, I saw plenty of people already gearing up toward disliking the film. As I mentioned before, many had good reason: They looked at director Zach Snyder’s track record of films (including Man of Steel, the film BvS is a sequel to), and didn’t like his work and therefore were sure or at least suspected strongly this work wouldn’t do it for them. When the film was released, the critical reaction was incredibly negative and the Rottentomatoes.com rating remains at a genuinely terrible 28% favorable among critics.
And yet…
The film is a box office hit (not that this was ever an indicator of movie greatness) and I suspect there were many like me who went to see the film, looked at those reviews and the very negative statements coming from others, and couldn’t help but scratch our heads and wonder if these negative reactions were exaggerated.
Of late, these negative views have moved from trashing the movie to finding any way at all of dismissing it…including attacking its massive box office numbers.
Take for instance the headline on this article presented in Inquisitr which was posted approximately 13 hours ago (4/17/16):
The focus of the article is that Deadpool, another superhero film, may wind up beating BvS in terms of domestic box office take. The author of the piece, Aric Mitchell, sounds positively giddy in reporting on the film’s “disappointing” and “embarrassing” U.S. box office. This is true yet the bottom line is that BvS’ global take is higher than Deapool’s by (as of this writing) nearly 50 million dollars. Is there anything positive for the author to state? Well, midway through the article he notes:
All that said, however, the film (BvS) is unlikely to lose money.
O…kay? I mean, both Deadpool and BvS are big box office hits and both are making obscene amounts of money. Yet because BvS may not quite make as much domestically as Deadpool this counts as an “embarrassment”?! By this logic I suppose the makers of Citizen Kane should be embarrassed by the fact that all these damn superhero movies are drawing more than it did in its day.
Elsewhere, on a webpage devoted to one of the bigger names in the comic book industry, someone (I’ll keep their name anonymous as I’m more interested in the message presented) posted the following regarding BvS:
The supporters of this movie must have biceps like watermelons for all the water they choose to carry for it.
Really? Because someone likes a film another doesn’t, it somehow reflects badly on the one who liked it? Am I therefore some kind of phony and am simply defending the indefensible? Or could it be that I happened to find enjoyment in something which some others did not and we have a simple difference of opinions? Is that so unheard of?
As I said above, I get the feeling this difference in opinions has become personal.
When I originally saw BvS a few weeks back (you can read my original review here), I was hoping for the best but, based on those early reviews, expecting the worst.
What I found was a surprisingly ambitious film that juggled many concepts and ideas at once. While it faltered at times, I found BvS, overall, a terrific product. Mind you, it is a superhero film devoted to mature audiences (this is probably one source of the gnashing of so many teeth as there are many who wanted an “all ages” film) and I suspect the upcoming Director’s Cut of it, rumored to be a little over three hours long vs. the theatrical version’s 2 and 1/2 hours, will wind up being better overall.
Still, having now seen the film a second time (This time in 3D), I still can’t understand where all the hatred comes from.
First thing’s first, however: Was it worth seeing the film in 3D versus the original 2D I saw it in? Not really. The 3D effects were interesting but hardly earth shattering. Seeing the film “flat” is fine.
Now, to the film itself: As I said, I still think its terrific, though I will acknowledge a few issues.
To begin, I’m still unclear about the whole Superman attack on the terrorist camp bit. As presented in the theatrical cut of the film, Lex Luthor’s henchmen use special bullets to kill the villagers/terrorists and one of the bullets gets lodged in Lois Lane’s notebook.
The villagers’ deaths are blamed on Superman and this somehow was because of these special bullets but, as I just stated, I’m not quite getting why this is the case.
Perhaps in the Director’s Cut this is explained a little better but all I can do is suspect and theorize the bullets disintegrated when they hit human flesh (they are super-sophisticated bullets) and the kill wounds therefore looked like they came from Superman’s heat vision. This is why Lois Lane winds up with the only bullet from this massacre as it didn’t hit anyone before getting stuck in her notebook.
This, admittedly, is pure guesswork on my part and the film obviously should not have the audience guessing the significance of this. The theatrical cut of the film simply doesn’t explain this very well and my hope is the Director’s Cut clarifies this issue. Regardless, it wasn’t a “make or break” type thing for me.
Later Batman has his “Apocalypse”-type dream and, at least in this theatrical cut of the film, I felt it was ultimately unnecessary and probably should have been left out. I suspect it was left in because it was a well done bit and hinted strongly at Darkseid’s coming, which is one of the major subtexts of this film.
Finally, there were those who found the whole “Lois Lane dumps the spear then goes back to get it” kinda silly but on second view I realized this sequence evoked a very similar sequence found in the climax of the film Excalibur (you think the marquee boasting the coming of Excalibur at the beginning of the film and during the Batman origin re-telling was purely there “just because”?!). The sequence also played out as a nod to Richard Donner’s Superman film as well. So while it was odd to me when I first saw the film it didn’t bother me quite as much on second viewing.
Anyway, those three issues were minor compared to the things I really liked about the film:
Superman’s ambivalence about his place in this world and the fact that some view him as a savior while others view him as a destroyer. He is genuinely torn because at heart he’s a good person who tries to do good but realizes sometimes doing good has unintended consequences (this is obviously a shout-back to what occurred at the end of Man of Steel).
After all these years and after all the different incarnations, it was a surprise and delight the way the filmmakers dealt with the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne. This was an original take on the character even as it used -and did not ignore- his previous history. Here we have someone whose world-view has radically changed. His anger and sense of outrage were inflamed by the events of Man of Steel (we witness that film’s conclusion through the eyes of Bruce Wayne in one of the film’s standout sequences) and this has changed him for the worse. Batman is singularly focused on destroying Superman, who he views as a danger to mankind, and this singularity in focus makes him fall prey to being used by others…
…which brings us to Lex Luthor. Many didn’t like the character as portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg but I liked it. Behind the character’s oddity is a darkness and, like Batman, a singularity of purpose as well. Only Lex Luthor is revealed to be smarter than Batman/Bruce Wayne as he is able to finesse situations around him to get the two to fight. At the end of the film, when he hints at the coming of Darkseid, it was a chilling and sobering scene.
Wonder Woman’s appearances were delightful and just long enough to add that little extra something to the film. If they had devoted more time to her it might have detracted from the story being told.
So, overall, I still like BvS. The film was ambitious, surprisingly deep, and hardly the flop so many seem to want to make it to be. I remain interested in seeing the Director’s Cut.
Never heard about the anime show Ghost Stories until this morning when someone pointed it out on Reddit.
As I understand it, Ghost Stories was, according to the original posting on reddit.com, a “mediocre” anime series that ran 20 episodes but whose distinction lies in the fact that when it was translated and dubbed into English, the dubbing team had a field day parodying the mediocre product.
Examples of the at times hilarious (IMHO!) dubbing of Ghost Stories can be found in these clips:
Amusing as seeing this was, it was surprising no one who posted comments on this (at least at this time) knew of the “parody dubbing” done many years before, and very well, by Woody Allen (!) for the 1966 film What’s Up Tiger Lilly. I’ll allow the trailer for the film to explain the madness within…
Here are some other clips from the parody dub…
So if humorous dubbing is your thing, check it out!
I hope the film, made by the same people behind Captain America: Winter Soldier (a film that I’ve stated many times before is my second favorite all time superhero film), is indeed as good as their past one.
However…
It occurs to me I’ve seen something like this before. Early reviews of a film released to the UK and in which the critics loved what they saw. Now where oh where could I have read about this?
The early preview reviews of Spectre which came from the UK critics were, at first, almost all very positive. It gave me hope the film would indeed be good.
At least IMHO. I found Spectre to be one of the absolute worst Bond films ever. So bad was the film, again IMHO, that it could well take the pole position from Moonraker and A View To A Kill, two of my least favorite Bond films of all time.
As for Captain America: Civil War, as the saying goes, we shall see!
I’ll try to make this the last -at least for now- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS) posting.
I’m convinced the love people have for Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman continues to fuel heated reactions from people. Either that or we’re tired of talking about Donald Trump and since there are no other “big” films out yet…
Anyway, many who hated, hated, hated the film have offered defenses from those who lambast them for daring (!) to have an opinion against it. One of the more amusing take downs of BvS was presented by Rob Bricken, who goes over the entire film and, for the most parts, despises what he saw. If you click on the below link, beware as Mr. Bricken goes over ALL ASPECTS of the film from start to end. Spoilers there be!
As someone who liked BvS, there’s stuff Mr. Bricken notes which I can’t argue with. I’ll be clear here: There are plenty of silly/stupid things that happen in BvS but, frankly, there’s plenty of silly/stupid things happen in almost all superhero films…including one of my all time favorites, Captain America: Winter Soldier.
Mind you, I consider Winter Soldier my second all time favorite superhero film, with 1978’s Superman being #1. Nonetheless, the film had issues as well. For example, what was the whole point of that opening ship assault? I’m still unclear as to how it linked up with the rest of the movie, Also, like Man Of Steel, that film’s climax presented an awful lot of city-wide destruction and there had to be hundreds, if not thousands of deaths which were shrugged away. Even if you were to accept that everyone evacuated Washington D.C. before the “shit went down”, exactly how many people on the various SHIELD crafts, be they Hydra agents or not, could/should have died?
The Avengers film -the first one, there’s little need to go into the problems many saw with Age of Ultron– likewise, had some head-scratchers as well. The biggest, to my mind, was this: If you are an alien army intent on conquering Earth, why open your dimensional jump right over New York City where everyone can see it and when the heroes are at full strength and ready to counterattack? You have the twin advantages of time and surprise. Why not open that dimensional jump behind the Moon where no one can see you and slowly bring your armies through that jump until they’re at full strength and then, when your forces are overwhelming, only then do you attack?
It should also be noted this movie featured an awful lot of city-wide destruction yet also shied away from saying anyone died.
Anyway, just my .02 cents…
While there is plenty of lambasting of BvS, I also found this fascinating article by Matthew Roza and for Salon.com which posits some interesting questions regarding the themes behind the film…
While I also may not agree with everything Mr. Roza states, he does offer some interesting food for thought vis a vis BvS and some of the deeper themes this movie explores, whether successfully or not.
Anyway, until the extended edition of the film is released in July, I’ll probably leave this topic…
I’m a big fan of Clint Eastwood, actor and, to a somewhat lesser degree, director. Mind you, he’s directed some very fine films but it is his magnetic screen presence that gets me whenever I think about him. He’s made plenty of films. Some, like his Italian “Dollar” Trilogy, the suspense classic Play Misty For Me, and Dirty Harry (to name but a few) were outstanding classics of cinema. Some, like Pink Cadillac and Heartbreak Ridge, to name but two, were gawdawful.
If one were to look over the history of Clint Eastwood, actor, it is my firm belief this film stands out as one of his strangest works. Sure, its weird to see Mr. Eastwood in a musical and actually singing (1969’s Paint Your Wagon) but that film was what it was: A musical.
The Beguiled, though set in Civil War times, is about as far away from The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, another Civil War time-frame set movie, as can be. Based on a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan, The Beguiled features Clint Eastwood as John McBurney, an badly injured Yankee soldier who stumbles upon -and is helped by- women in a Southern boarding school.
I don’t want to get into SPOILERS, even though they involve a 45 year old film, but suffice to say this is a film fraught with sexual tensions, jealousies, and, ultimately, very dark, dark psychological issues. Because Clint Eastwood is the “star” of the film and because of its Civil War setting, the movie slyly plays with your expectations of what to expect in his character.
If one looks through Mr. Eastwood’s acting career, he has played the “good guy” (though morally shifty) in most of his films, in this one he can be called an out and out “bad guy,” though using the term feels like it diminishes the dimensions he brings to the role. Suffice to say Eastwood’s John McBurney is a bad man who takes advantages of his situation and ultimately pays for the way he treats/uses those around him.
This is not some “action” film. It is a work which focuses on human interactions and the darkness that can arise out of sexual tensions.
It is a provocative work and, as I mentioned above, easily one of the more startling and daring works he’s ever acted in.
The reason I point all this out is because it was announced a remake of this film is in the works:
The article above is from Slate.com and the headline essentially states everything there is to know, so far, about the film. We have our three female stars but, at that writing, there is no news as to who will play the Clint Eastwood role.
I’m intrigued but also curious if the film will be quite as…daring…as the original. It’s also a daring step forward for Ms. Coppola, who I don’t believe has made anything quite this gothic and macabre before.
We’ll see!
The trailer to the film, presented below, shows just how hard the studio had it when it came to advertising the movie. What do you say? How do you go about saying it? They tried. They failed, IMHO!
For one, they were both directed and co-written by well known and accomplished men in this field with several hits to their names. In the case of MFU, you had Guy Richie (Snatch, the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes) and for Tomorrowland you had Brad Bird (Iron Giant, Incredibles, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol). Both films were also given large budgets by their respective studios and featured big name actors.
And in both cases, the films weren’t box office hits.
MFU had a budget of $75 million according to IMDB but made only $45.5 in the American box office. Tomorrowland, again according to IMDB, had a budget of $190 million and made back approximately $93.5 of this in American markets.
Despite their weak box office, both films had at least decent critical ratings. MFU, according to rottentomatoes.com, scored a healthy 68% positive among critics and a 74% positive among audiences. Tomorrowland, on the other hand, scored a mediocre 50% with both audiences and critics though it did better, overall, at the box office.
I saw both films over the past couple of days and found them to be enjoyable enough to recommend but, on the other hand, I could see (with that wonderful 20/20 rearview vision) why both films failed to connect with audiences.
TMU is based on the 1960’s TV series of the same name. In that series which aired during the heights of the first wave of James Bondian hysteria, you had an American and Soviet agent played by Robert Vaughn and David McCallum work together for global peace, something rather forward thinking considering we were at the heights of the cold war. An interesting bit of trivia, the premiere season of the show, presented in 1964 featured an episode wherein the future Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, would act together on screen as guest stars for the very first time and two years before reuniting for Star Trek…
Anyway, Guy Richie’s goal, it appeared, in making MFU was to create a modernisic take on the supersaturated, supercolorful spy films of the 1960’s. His direction, editing, and dialogue were, to those familiar with these particular films, spot on. Though the film was clearly a modern artifact, there is love for the genre in almost every frame of the film, as can be seen in its trailer…
However for whatever reason Mr. Richie decided to subvert his action scenes and this, IMHO, was one of the film’s greatest sins for spy films, if anything, should be exciting. Other than the opening act, the action sequences in MFU are generally played for laughs (witness in particular the sequence involving a boat chase in a closed off harbor…we witness most of the “action” in the in the background while in the foreground and front and center we watch as one of our protagonists eats a sandwich and drinks wine!).
Worse, the villain of the piece is stated to be a “fanatic” and a very ingenious and dangerous woman. However, as presented you don’t feel she’s either particularly smart or dangerous. When she eventually meets her just desserts, there’s no “oh yeah!” excitement to her comeuppance.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: A good action film needs not just a good hero to root for, but a good villain to root against and in MFU’s case such a character was simply never there.
Incredibly, this same problem (one of the movie’s problems, anyways) can be found in the ambitious Tomorrowland. Based on the Disney theme park’s futuristic section, Tomorrowland opens at the 1964 World’s Fair. It was in this fair, in real life, the “It’s a Small World” ride was introduced to the world. In the movie, a young boy named Frank Walker (in this section played by Thomas Robinson and later played by George Clooney as an adult) brings his experimental jetpack to be judged in a scientific competition. The jetpack is judged by the stern Nix (Hugh Laurie). While Nix is unimpressed with the young kid’s work, a young girl named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) is impressed by this invention and she gives him a pin and tells him to, from a distance, follow their group on to the “It’s A Small World” ride.
The pin is scanned by a computer while in the ride and Frank Walker is diverted and winds up in the magical Tomorrowland, a futuristic alternate world and all appears great…
We fast forward to the present and are introduced to Casey Newton (Britt Robertson) a young child prodigy who “knows how things work”. We find that Athena is around and she hasn’t aged at all since 1964. Athena manages to place one of those pins upon Casey without her knowing and, after she’s sent to jail for trespassing on NASA property she realizes she has it. When Casey touches the pin, she has visions of Tomorrowland and wants to get there.
Eventually we find that things aren’t quite as bright as we thought and when Casey meets the elderly Frank Walker, he realizes she might be Earth’s only hope for survival.
When the first Tomorrowland trailers appeared I was struck by how difficult it was to get a handle on the film’s plot from them.
I suspected -and the suspicion was confirmed when the movie was released and the reviews came out- that the film featured an elaborate, perhaps too elaborate, plot that defied easy explanation.
This is true, even as the movie’s first half simply involves explaining to us what Tomorrowland is, setting up the characters, and giving us an extended “chase” sequence. When the action moves to Tomorrowland itself in the later half, unfortunately, the film goes south. We are too quickly shown and expected to accept Nix as “evil” and the solution to world wide catastrophe -a complicated series of events, one would think!- winds up being to simply blow something up real good…a rather sad -and ironically way too primitive!- solution presented in a movie that allegedly celebrates creativity, ingenuity, and intellect.
And yet, like MFU, the film has its charms and isn’t “bad” by any stretch of the (ahem) imagination. The leads are charismatic and interesting even if the ending resorted to more standard movie tropes.
So there you have it, two flawed films from directors who took a chance and tried to do something outside their wheelhouses and, in both cases, delivered good if not great entertainment. I can see why both films didn’t quite light the box-office on fire but I’ll be damned if these two individuals shouldn’t be congratulated for at least trying to give moviegoers something different.
Yesterday I reviewed Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from here on out) and (SPOILERS) I liked the film.
There are many out there, including a majority of professional reviewers as per rottentomatoes.com, who did not. I’ve read samplings from those who did not like the film because, frankly, I’m curious why it worked for some -including, obviously, me- but for others it was such a bust.
Understand, I’m not trying to pick a fight and/or defend my views. Opinions regarding works of art, be they paintings or music or books or, yes, movies are a subjective thing and while I may love, say, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (I consider it along with Fritz Lang’s Metropolis among my two all time favorite films). I can certainly understand if someone feels the film doesn’t work for them.
What is a fascinating added element to the BvS mix of opinions is the fact, I believe, that people coming into it have a built in emotional investment. There are those who love Marvel films/works and couldn’t be happier if anything with the “taint” of DC on it fails. Let’s face it, there has always been a competition between the heroes of DC comics and those of Marvel and, likely, always will be.
There are others who sampled director Zach Snyder’s previous works -including Man of Steel, the film BvS is a direct sequel to- and based on that they have no faith in his works and therefore just knew he was going to screw this film up. There are still others, not unlike me, who love the characters of Superman and/or Batman -and Wonder Woman!- and went to see the film hoping it would succeed even as the early word was so negative. And then there are those who went to see the film with no real “skin in the game”. They went in with some, perhaps a very small knowledge of Superman and Batman and hoped for a good time.
These, of course, aren’t all the possibilities and there are likely those who had several factors apply to their view of the film.
In my review, I noted BvS was not a perfect film. To me there probably isn’t and never will be a “perfect” film. Things could always be better but as a viewer one should try to see a film in a neutral state and then judge what you’ve seen with as few prejudices and/or expectations as you can.
Which in the case of BvS may well be impossible.
As I said, these characters mean something to people, and for some the idea of a Zach Snyder getting his hands on them is reason enough to automatically suspect the end the result will be godawful.
Curiously, this film revealed a big disconnect, at least so far, between “fans” and “critics”. While not all critics condemned the film, a vast majority did. Yet the film proved a box-office juggernaut upon its release last week. According to boxofficemojo.com, the film earned a record for March 170.1 million dollars in the U.S. and an incredibly impressive $424.1 million in foreign markets.
Though the movie is clearly a box office success, those who most seem invested in booting director Zach Snyder from the DC movie business -or movie business in general- were forced to change their tune. While at first they engaged in a “told you so” type statement by pointing out the very poor critical reaction, the box office success has them making comments along the lines of:
Let’s see what happens with the movie’s boxoffice next week.
Their original negative view of the film hasn’t been rejected. The film remains the turd they expected it to be, even if they didn’t bother going to see it, and the box office success only points out that people were fooled by that first week of release and now that everyone knows just how terrible this film is, they fully expect a heavy box-office drop.
To which I, someone who liked the film, would say: I expect a heavy box office drop next week. You can’t have two weeks where in the first a film breaks box office records and in the second week it stays very close to that box office record (almost all films drop sales from week one to two). Will the drop be precipitous, ie in the 60% range? Who knows.
Even so, I suspect Warner Brothers will still be happy with the end result.
Now, shifting focus just a little bit, I think there’s another reason someone like me might find himself liking this film more than some others.
BvS, for better or worse, has a great many DC comics “easter eggs” within it. The more you know about DC comics and their characters/storylines, the more you may get out of the film.
For example, Bruce Wayne/Batman’s weird post-apocalyptic dream.
The dream appears to point to future DC movie storylines but, IMHO, BvS could have worked perfectly fine without it. Nonetheless, it is in the theatrical cut and I suspect people who are not as familiar with DC comic stories may find the whole thing confusing.
Why, they may ask, are we seeing this weird dream? What possible reason is it in this movie (again, I feel it could have been cut from the theatrical version and included in the extended cut)? What in the world does it mean?
To the DC comic fan, that later question touches upon several DC comics storylines and, in particular, the villainous Darkseid and the New Gods (there are other more subtle references to this in the movie as well)…
…as well as the multiverse. Was Bruce Wayne/Batman having a vision of another, parallel Earth where Superman is recruited by Darkseid? Further, the dream/vision ends with the Flash appearing and warning Bruce Wayne of the future, not unlike this scene, found in Crisis on Infinite Worlds…
Crisis on Infinite Earths is a 12 part story written by Marv Wolfman and illustrated by George Perez and a number of inkers. That above panel has Batman seeing a vision of a dying Flash who has come from the future and warns him of the destruction that lies ahead. The vision Bruce Wayne/Batman has in BvS ends with Flash warning him of the future not unlike the Flash did in Crisis.
Based on this I can’t help but feel the Justice League film might be using the Crisis storyline while marrying it with the New Gods/Darkseid.
Could be, anyway.
Regardless, it would appear the summer movie season has officially begun.
There are times a film appears to hit a buzzsaw of emotions and reactions and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from here on) has certainly done so.
Like many, when I first heard of the film being made I was excited. When the first images were released a year or so ago showing an armored Batman on a rooftop and a dark, shadowy Superman floating above him, I was giddy with excitement.
The film’s release was highly anticipated because both Superman and Batman -not to mention Wonder Woman!- are characters who are by now so ingrained in our society and so beloved (for the most part) that its difficult to find someone who a) doesn’t know who the characters are or b) isn’t at least a tiny bit interested in seeing movies featuring them.
As the movie’s release approached, however, it appeared audiences had already taken sides as to how the film was going to be. There is -and remains- a very vocal group who gave up on the film when they heard Zach Snyder was back in the director’s seat. Let’s be clear: I can understand those who have sampled Mr. Snyder’s work and don’t like it being suspicious as to whether he can pull off this -or any- film. If what he’s done before hasn’t appealed to you, its understandable you view any new work with suspicion.
Those who were most vocal in that suspicion -if not were outright hostile- to BvS were also those who didn’t like the film this is a sequel to, 2013’s Zach Snyder directed Man of Steel.
The reaction to Man of Steel was split, to be polite. Some hated the film outright while others loved it. Still others liked parts of the film yet one commonality seemed to appear: People were turned off by the amount of destruction presented in that film’s climax.
It was this climax and its apparent cavalier way of showing a large city reduced to rubble that for many was simply too much. With that much destruction, the loss of human life had to great, and Superman and the characters around him appeared obvious to this loss in the movie’s closing minutes.
To the makers of BvS’ credit, they acknowledged the strong reactions and, in my mind very cleverly, decided to face this head on with this movie. In fact, not only was their focus on this, but so too were the makers of the upcoming Captain America: Civil War, which to my eyes (now that I’ve seen BvS), appears to be their take on the exact same thing…
So last week BvS was finally released and the critical reaction was -there is no way to sugar coat this- terrible. Over at rottentomatoes.com, the film opened with a dismal 11% approval rating before climbing to 41% and then settling down (as of today) to a 29% approval among critics. Audiences, however, give the film a far better 73% approval.
I have to admit, the wave of hostility toward the film and the critical reaction worried me. With this many critics panning the film, would it turn out to be a bust?
Still, I was eager to see it. The film’s trailers, for the most part, were enjoyable and I loved the visuals presented. Like so many others I love the characters of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman and seeing them together in a movie, even if the movie turns out not to be very good, was something I had to do.
Yesterday, at the very earliest showing (9:30 AM!) I did just that. To my surprise, I wasn’t alone. Despite the very early hour, the theater was easily 1/2 to 3/4s full. I sat back and forced my mind into neutral. I wanted/hoped this film was good even as I feared the critics were right and it would prove to be a big disappointment.
I won’t keep you in suspense any longer: In my opinion, this is a damn good film.
No, BvS isn’t “perfect.” There is some choppiness to the storytelling which, I suspect, might have to do with the fact this version of the film, which runs a very long two and a half hours, was nonetheless cut down from a 3 plus hour “director’s cut.” (That version is scheduled for release to home video on July 16 and I for one am eager to see it)
Still, I stand by what I said: I liked the film quite a bit and can’t help but dispute some of the critics and their negatives.
For instance, BvS opens with a retelling of the Batman “origin” story. You know the drill, after leaving a movie, Thomas and Martha Wayne, along with a very young Bruce Wayne, are confronted by a mugger. Thomas and Martha Wayne are killed and young Bruce Wayne is traumatized and this is what “makes” him Batman.
While I can see why people bemoan the retelling of this story, I think they missed why it was retold. To begin, the retelling is quick, but secondly, and more importantly, it lays down the Batman we know before giving him his second origin story.
For the Batman presented in BvS is very cleverly, very subtlety, not the Batman we are familiar with to this point.
This is a Batman who witnesses and is traumatized by the destruction of Metropolis as presented in Man of Steel. He personally sees the destruction and the deaths of so many people (many he knows) and this rattles Batman/Bruce Wayne to the point where he becomes, as Alfred (a spot on, absolutely delightful Jeremy Irons) states, “cruel”.
Understand, the Batman we see here is in a fever state. He’s off his game and very flawed, locked in on the goal of ridding the world of the danger he feels Superman represents. The more rational Batman we are accustomed to would have realized certain things were occurring and manipulations were being made but because of his rage, this Batman misses them…until it’s almost too late.
I realize I’m talking about subtlety in a film that prides itself in showing “big booms” but its there.
Superman, likewise, is also presented as being in a state of flux. He is new to this game and also grappling with the destruction caused at the end of Man of Steel. He knows he saved humanity, but at his core he also realizes salvation came with a steep price. As much good as he tries to do, will humanity ever fully embrace him and will he always be presented with unintended consequences resulting from his actions?
There has been much scorn heaped upon Jessie Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor and, once again, my feelings lie opposite to those who criticize his portrayal. Then again, I’m one of those weirdos who loved Gene Hackman’s version of Lex Luthor in the first Superman film. Mr. Hackman presented a man who at times appears to be a buffoon but when all that superficiality is stripped from him he’s revealed to be a deadly beast with very sharp teeth.
This appears to be the philosophy behind Mr. Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. While outwardly geeky and, perhaps, a little “out there” at his core this Lex Luthor is a much, much darker version of Bruce Wayne. Unlike Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent, Lex Luthor is not an orphan. In fact, he speaks of his father and notes the man was a “monster”. It is a combination of his father’s cruelty and, if one reads between the lines, the same destruction witnessed at the end of Man of Steel that has driven him very much over the edge. Like Bruce Wayne, he too is locked in on the idea of destroying Superman for the good of mankind. Unlike Bruce Wayne, he was always a cruel individual and this has only given him a focus for his evil.
Thus, the set up is there. Superman is the target and Lex Luthor is the ultimate manipulator, moving pieces/people into place to create a confrontation between Superman and Batman. And if Batman can’t do the job, Luthor has a backup plan in place…
I’ll stop there and not spoil any more of the film. However, before I go, let me add one last thing: I loved Gal Gidot’s Wonder Woman. Though her role within this feature amounted to an extended cameo, her take on the character made me really eager to see her further exploits. She was cool and mysterious and powerful and, like the best versions of Wonder Woman, absolutely did not shy away from battle.
Though I’m skeptical of this version of the Flash (I love the TV show), I’ll end it with this:
