GothaMetropolis

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Somewhere in central Illinois, in Imax 3D, I think

On March 23 I emailed my son-in-law, asking, "Am I correct in assuming that every critic could say that making shadow animals would be a better use of a movie screen than Batman v Superman and you’d still go?" "Without a doubt," he confirmed. "I would have to turn in my geek card if I missed it."

I told him that the early reviews were bad enough that I'd probably skip it, but that I trusted him to let me know if I needed to see it. He asked what criteria he should consider, and I responded, "You’d need to convince me that I wouldn’t leave the theater saying, 'That was just fucking stupid—and not stupid in an entertaining way, just fucking stupid.' And of course if you convinced me and yet I still found it fucking stupid, I’d also add, 'And Dan is fucking stupid for thinking I wouldn’t think this is fucking stupid.' So there would be a lot riding on it, especially when you consider that I now post links to my blog on Facebook."

Well, the dude took his assignment seriously, way more seriously than I take the typical blog post, so I asked his permission to post his thoughtful review here. And I gotta say, while I'm still unlikely to see it, his response has boosted the odds from maybe 99-to-1 against to more like 9-to-4, and that's quite a shift. So, many thanks to guest blogger Dan Bechtel:

But first an update, wherein Cheeseblab is surprised to find himself watching the flick, on April 16. And I'm relieved to report that it doesn't suck nearly as much as the current 28% Rotten Tomatoes rating (26% from Top Critics) led me to fear. One complaint that cannot fairly be leveled is that the film is dumbed down in terms of plot complexity. "Wait, who's doing what to whom, and why?" It's not by any stretch a good film, but I won't be billing DB for 3 of the rapidly dwindling hours of my life.

My biggest complaints are twofold: (1) the "plot complexity" is more accurately termed lack of focus. The filmmakers seem to have lacked confidence (with, to be fair, some reason) that any single plot strand, or even a braid of any three or four such threads, was interesting enough to hold the audience; (2) unlike all good comic book movies--even Christopher Nolan's notoriously dark Batman trilogy--this one has next to no humor; the only two lines played for laughs come near the end and are so out of character with the rest of the film as to fall flat (though they're already pretty flat and obvious anyway).

Ad hoc comments in cheesy orange below.

Given that Batman was the first comic book that I dove into in 1989 when I started collecting comics, I have a broader base of knowledge of the character and his mythos than just about anyone else in the comic book universe; this movie was a great and complex representation of that character. Seeing Batman as a hero who is coming out of "retirement" to deal with this problem is the version of the hero that I appreciate the most. To me, Ben Affleck does a great job playing the role of both this darker and more cynical Batman and the Bruce Wayne character that goes along with it. I wouldn't go so far as "great," but yes, I think he plays it the way he's asked to--which is, I think, part of the problem (see "lack of humor" above). That said, there is a glut of excellent acting talent in the film (Holly Hunter and Amy Adams, to name two, give their roles conviction that doesn't exist in the script, and Jeremy Irons is a brilliant heir to Michael Caine as Alfred--and he's a source of dry, very British humor that I should have mentioned above. We get to see some of the origin story (that after this many damn movies, I don´t think we need to see), but ultimately it looks and plays well for me.

The Superman character was a bit more complicated in this portrayal than the one that was present in Man of Steel. Complicated indeed: one of the good movies that might have been made but that gets lost in the bouillabaisse of plot parts is an investigation of unintended consequences. The brief scene with Clark's earthly (and dead) father (Kevin Costner) is a clear indication that someone was thinking of going in that direction, and as you point out below, the problem of collateral damage is a huge one in this particular superhero world. A clear and consistent focus on that theme might have produced a terrific film. I think Henry Cavill's portrayal is fine. Here we must part company. The Diet Dr Pepper can bearing his image that I just emptied has more life. The character is already so damn two-dimensional when taken from the page of the comic that I feel like Cavill at least brings a little more to the role in terms of considering his ethos as he moves forward in a world that equally loves and fears him.

Which brings us to the crux of the movie: how does the world deal with having a god living among them? The guy damn near destroyed Metropolis in his battle with Zod in the first movie. I just noticed that Zod was played by the excellent Michael Shannon; now he could be a good superhero, a working-class one, maybe the Thing. A lot of innocent folks live in Metropolis, and a lot of those folks didn't make it out of the battle, yet it would have been worse if he hadn't beaten Zod, so . . . what to do with this guy who could kill us all but appears to be on our side?

Enter the most divisive character in the movie, Lex Luthor as played by Jesse Eisenberg. Some people REALLY hate this guy in the role, but I think that he looks a lot more like what a megalomaniacal billionaire bad guy would look like in today's world. Yes, he's evil Bill Gates. He is a bit over the top and certainly plays the role with an insane bent, but I dug the way he approached it. He needs to be in the movie to be the underlying evil that helps push the two gladiators toward each other, and ultimately who they have to band together against (and if you think that is a spoiler, you haven't watched a single trailer). He is good. You really hate him and understand why the heroes hate him. I do wish that there was some depth to the character beyond this in that it is nearly impossible to empathize with him (one of the big holes in the script from my perspective). Yeah, he gives us one line: Daddy beat him.

I realize that another huge complaint about the movie is that it isn't action-packed enough, and there is a TON of exposition at the beginning of the movie. Lots of expo? Yes. Insufficient action? Only for the lobotomized. The comic book reader in me who knows the characters and likes seeing them in this setting really loved this exposition. To me it needed to be there to set up the rest and from my perspective it was well acted and the story was good. It needed to be trimmed up a bit (2½ hours is too much for a movie like this one [a-fucking-men, and that's to do with too many stories, and lack of conviction in any set of plot threads that would work together]), but I didn't need to see nonstop action to be all-in for that part of the movie. That being said, starting with THIS MUCH exposition does make the story plod along a bit, and if you haven't already bought in (or if you have the attention span of your average American), this does make it harder to enjoy the movie. I think what you're trying to say is that sometimes it gets boring and you don't really care who kills whom. And by the way, if the film hadn't already jumped the shark, the moment Luthor animates the Kryptonian Golem is it, Snorrrrrre final battle sequence. They needed a better balance.

Once the action starts, however, damn, this movie is awesome! It is relentless, and I gave a shit the whole time. Again, we differ here. You get to see the humanity of a god. I see no humanity in Clark--well, except when he jumps Lois in the tub; you don't have to be from Earth to see the good sense of that. You get to see the complexity of emotion that goes along with Batman's twenty-year one-man war on crime and how it plays out against Superman and Luthor. You also get to see the very best part of this movie, and that is Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). Hmmmm . . .

Every scene she is in makes the movie better. That is certainly true in an aesthetic sense; the Israeli actor is stunningly beautiful, and except for the superhero kit (quite possibly even more absurdly pneumatic than the one Lynda Carter had to wear back in the day), her beauty is well served by her costuming, but there's zero evidence that she can act a lick. Then again, there seems to be a pretty good chance that there will be zero need for her to do so. That is a character who cries out for some campy humor and a good comic actor (think what Adams could do with that part--or another Amy, Schumer). I am very excited about the stand-alone movie that she is in. I was more eager for it before seeing this, I'm afraid. Clearly, she is in the movie as a part of the Justice League setup for the future, but without her, the movie is not as good for sure.

So to sum up:

• This is the movie that I wished existed in the world when I was a high school comic book dork. The adult version of me also really liked this film and would recommend it to everyone to make a decision for themselves. There are scenes in this movie that were taken directly out of my very favorite comic book pictures and I have never seen them on film before, so I was stoked.
• Ben Affleck is my favorite Batman thus far.
• Gal Godot is a killer Wonder Woman.
• Henry Cavill is a very convincing Superman.
• Jessie Eisenberg is a creepy-as-hell villain who you hate.

It is not a perfect film. We agree here. The villains are very two-dimensional. The exposition is too long and unbalanced. The movie needs about a half hour cut out of it.

Do you need to see this film? I would say yes. I believe you misjudged, but it was not an unreasonable judgment. Do you need to see it in the theater? It depends on how big your TV is. As long as you can get a widescreen view, I think you could see it at home.

Thus endeth the review. 

Trailers

• Fantastic Beasts (and where to Find Them)--Someone names J. K. Rowling has written a screenplay about wizards, it seems. Certain to bomb.
• Ratchet and Clink--Wants to be WALL-E; pretty good chance it isn't.
• Ghostbusters--I really want this to be good, but I barely cracked a smile at the trailer.

Search for intelligent life

Let's go Metrograph M4

Brand new art/revival house on the Lower East side. Problem: so L on the ES as to be an awkward reach from my usual Houston, Sixth Avenue, 13th Street stomping grounds. Solution: baptize the place with an exclusive M4--not the first M4 I've done all at the same site, but the first I've planned that way.

It's a lovely venue, at 7 Ludlow, just north of Canal (quickest subway route from Grand Central: Lexington line to Broadway/Lafayette, then Brooklyn-bound F three stops to East Broadway, which exits a little more than a block from the theater). If you have plenty of time and good weather, though, just take the 6 to Canal and meander east through Little Italy and Chinatown. Two screens, one of which has a small balcony; 35mm prints; reserved seating; a staff comprising very young, very pretty people of both traditional genders. Interesting seasonings on the popcorn, which is 6 bucks for a dry quart and staler than you'd think possible, given the theater's brief tenure. On the other hand, 4 bucks gets you a massive box of Whoppers. And like everything else, the concession nook looks terrific.

Hua li shang ban zu (Office)

Met

Speaking of looking terrific, the stars of this film are the sets, particularly the titular headquarters of a global investment firm--an office dominated by (M4 symmetry alert!) a Big Clock.

This is the best Chinese 3D musical I've ever seen. Also the worst, and it seems likelier to maintain that status than the other: unless ill-served by the subtitle translator, the songs are neither smart nor otherwise interesting; the plot is soapily conventional; and even the 3D is pointless: those beautiful sets could have been given depth just as effectively by good cinematography.

High School (1968)

Met

When I saw this was showing, I thought, "Frederick Wiseman classic that I've never seen!" Oddly, I did not think, until the film began and I saw those godawful clothes and hairstyles, "Nineteen sixty-eight? I was fourteen and in high school!"

I've just now learned that the Northeast High School at which Wiseman points his camera is in Philadelphia; I'd have thought somewhere in Ohio--this midwesterner felt a definite midwestern vibe.

Anyone who has ever seen a Wiseman documentary knows what to expect (documentation) and what not to expect (commentary), but of course the filmmaker's wise editing has a commentary edge of its own: you can't come away from this without sensing that Wiseman was on the side of the generational angels: stodgy old crewcuts and matrons enforce rules whose foundations are past practice, while nerdy youngsters try desperately to exercise their budding muscles of independence.

A Space Program

Met

Yes! That's why I make these trips! A team of bricoleurs uses steel and plywood and Tyvek and epoxy to simulate a womanned mission to Mars, and the narrative, too, is bricolage: the filmmakers take everything completely seriously, except when they don't. The film documents a 2012 art installation by Tom Sachs in the Park Avenue Armory wherein an audience was invited to observe the mission; I was too unhip and too far away and too unclued-in to be there, but I'm happy with the film experience. A contender for my long-contemplated festival of brilliantly weird films.

The Big Clock (1948)

Met

Charles Laughton at his most oleaginous is a Rupert Murdoch of mid-twentieth-century media, with a -ways magazine (Newsways, Styleways, Artways) for every taste; Ray Milland is the editor of the leader of the pack, Crimeways. When Laughton's Earl Janoth murders a mistress, Milland's George Stroud is trapped in a wrong-man plot as nonsensical as it is delightful. Elsa Lanchester contributes a wonderful turn as a flighty but calculating artist whose work is sometimes brutalist, sometimes surreal.

But a bookend comment about the Metrograph: clocks are not big here. Showtimes are listed at precise hours, but your 1 p.m. screening might actually get under way at 1:05, 1:08, 1:11--another reason why the venue will probably not appear in the middle of a lot of M4 itineraries. The Big Clock, with a 95-minute runtime, was scheduled to be screened at 7, making me certain of catching the 9:34 train home, and giving me some small hope of the 9:02 and being home & watching the German-England friendly by 11:30.

But about 9:10, manager Alexander Olch came in to tell us that one of the projectors for the theater had blown a bulb, so we would be "going really old school": a pause between reels to load the one remaining functional projector. I have to say there was something gained in stopping every 18 to 20 minutes, typically at a moment of particular suspense (especially the final break, of course), but lost was any hope of getting to New Haven before midnight.

Ah well: a fine day nonetheless, and a vibrant, quirky addition to the Manhattan film world.

The way and the truth and the light

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

(1982)

I'm editing a biography by Molly Haskell of Spielberg, and what with its being Easter weekend, this seemed like a good time to screen this story of the death, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens of a miracle-working figure of virtue from afar.

It still works, but yes, the ending is forever. Where was the editor?

Truth, beauty

Marguerite

Crit

Seems like an easy comedy setup: Marguerite Dumont (Catherine Frot) wants to sing in the worst way, and that's precisely what she does. But because she's a generous patron, neither her husband (André Marcon) nor the members of the Amadeus Club, the only audience she ever performs for, will tell her what she can't hear for herself. She is, in short, an operatic Norma Desmond, with a tin ear but a generous heart and a beautiful soul.

Therein lies the comedic rub: because of that beautiful soul, we want Marguerite shielded from the truth--or better yet, we'd like a miracle to transform her voice to match her soul. (Like Norma, Marguerite has a manservant who doubles as her chief protector from reality, though Madelbos [Denis Mpunga] is a more complicated character than Max.)

The film extends its final act far beyond what's necessary, but apart from that, it is a nearly perfect piece of work, winner of 4 Césars (including one for Frot) and nominated for 7 more. Since it's showing up in the States early in the year, I assume it has already missed its Oscar shot, but it's hard to imagine that France had anything better than this to nominate. Oh, right: France nominated Mustang; well, that was damn good too.

What are you giving him a balm for?

Monty Python's Life of Brian

(1979)

OK, there were no Islamists then--in fact, there was no Islam then--but there was plenty of uncompromising religious and political fanaticism. So this year, a study question: what can this film teach us about ISIS and global theopolitical strife? Discuss.

You really like me. Don't you?

Hello, My Name Is Doris

Crit

A heartbreaking tale of self-deception, or at least I'm sure it would have been (1) had I believed the dynamics of the Doris (Sally Field)-John (Max Greenfield) relationship for an instant and (B) had I not been distracted from beginning to end by the sheer creepiness of the narrative if the sex roles were reversed, with, say, Michael McKean as Dorian and Kate Mara as Jonelle. Yes, yes, yes, I get the inherent disparity of the potential for sexual violence, but stalking (electronic and physical) is stalking, and if women of a certain age are to have the same narrative opportunities as men of the same age have always had, they need to acknowledge creepiness parity.

Trailers

• Genius--I can die happy: at last a film about an editor, with two English guys as Maxwell Perkins and Thomas Wolfe--oh, and I now see another as Hemingway and an Aussie as Fitzgerald. I tell ya, you let a Brit play Hank Williams, and everything goes tits up. 
• The Meddler--Susan Sarandon in the empty-nested title role.

Ruthless

Remember

Crit

A sci-fi trope we've seen before: a malleable innocent is sent on an mission of assassination by a manipulative genius. To be fair, we've never seen it with a Holocaust twist, with both pawn (Christopher Plummer) and Svengali (Martin Landau) Auschwitz survivors. Atom Egoyan has never shied from implausibility or potential offensiveness, but we've been waiting more than a decade for him to make his morality play sensibility work again; the wait continues.

Trailer

• Miles Ahead--I've been excited about seeing Don Cheadle portray (he cowrote and directed too) the greatest jazz (sorry: that's "just a made-up word") trumpeter of the second half of the twentieth century, at minimum, but the trailer looks like standard-issue troubled-artist biopic.

Embedded

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Crit

I'd say the reason for the barely fresh 62% Rotten Tomatoes score has to do with viewers having been lured by a trailer that makes it look like a reasonably brainless comedy, but then I see that the "top critics" score is in the rotten range, at 54%. Wtf? (Speaking of which, will you still respect me if I admit that I didn't get the title until about a week ago?)

Is is a great film? No. Is it a pretty damn good treatment of the dangers both gender-specific and non in testosteronic professions that incorporate addictive quantities of adrenaline? Yeah, I think so. And while it can fairly be claimed that I'm incapable of finding any fault with Tina Fey, Date Night notwithstanding, . . . well, that just seems like a sensible policy to me.

I think what we have here is an example of the aggregate scores being largely composed of the same sort of people who refuse to greenlight gynocentric pictures for the studios. In fact, I just counted: among female top critics, this gets 70% positive rating; among the boys, it's under 50%. Which is one reason for my new year's resolution: this is precisely the sort of middling-rated film I'd have skipped last year (maybe not, given the Tina factor, but maybe so), and I'd have been the poorer for it.

Howard's end of the world

10 Cloverfield Lane

Crit

Let's see, what can I even tell you about this? Mainly, I guess, that it's the scariest you've ever seen John Goodman, and no, I haven't forgotten Barton Fink. Well, one more thing: yes, it really is as good as everyone is saying, and I can testify that not having seen Cloverfield is no impediment to your enjoyment.

El abrazo de la serpiente (Embrace of the serpent)

Crit

Weird, beautiful, poetic, psychotropic black-and-white (well, almost exclusively) fever dream about white people misunderstanding Amazonia. It's a little bit Heart of Darkness, a little bit Faulkner's "The Bear," a little bit 2001, a little bit Hunter S. Thompson, except that Hunter would have shot someone and been killed and probably eaten. Not that he'd have minded.

Trailers

• A Hologram for a King--Eggers, Tykwer, Hanks; yeah, that could work.
• Star Trek Beyond--Sure, why not?