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.