The opening paragraph of my film reviews usually consists of a brief
introduction and a description of the context leading up to it. However,
when it comes to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I feel inclined to
present my reaction to it up front, before any kind of introduction,
which, while trying to be as poetic and elegant as I can while staying
true to my raw feelings, can best be captured as follows: WHAT IN THE
HOLY FUCKING SHIT WAS THAT?? Ok, now that I have gotten that off my
chest, my review can continue as normal. I return to the realm of
writing after something of a hiatus since my Deadpool review. There were
a number of reasons for this, the most pressing of which being recent
financial obligations that I have to prepare for, which require that I
invest more time into things both at work and outside of work. That, and
a lack of films to write about that would generate a decent review (I
will admit that I started brainstorming and writing a new philosophical
piece last month, but, while working on it, I quickly realized that that
particular piece will take some time to produce). Thus, I figured that
the release of Batman v Superman would make for an opportune moment for
me to come back to writing. And it appears as if superhero films
continue to be the flavor of the decade, despite the strong performance
of Mad Max, Jurassic World, and Star Wars last year. New to the arena
this time around is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, DC Comics'
attempt at entering into the fray with Marvel's Avengers, directed by
Zach Snyder.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the second installment of the DC
Comics Cinematic Universe, after 2013's Man of Steel, and is meant to
ultimately segue into a full-blown Justice League movie at some point in
the future. And, in case you've lived under a rock for the better part
of your life, the Justice League is DC's amalgam of their most famous
superheroes, including Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, who band
together to fight evil, not unlike Marvel's Avengers, both of which
appeared in the 1960s. The film stars Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman
and Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman, with a supporting cast
consisting of the likes of Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jeremy Irons,
and Gal Gadot, and pits our two heroes against Superman's arch nemesis
Lex Luthor, portrayed by Jesse Eisenburg. This also marks the first
silver screen appearance of Batman since Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight
Rises in 2012, and comes on the heels of Man of Steel, which, while not
groundbreaking, is usually considered the most successful silver screen
iteration of Superman to date (after a long list of failed attempts).
The film opens up with a re-enactment of the ending scene of Man of
Steel, except told from the perspective of Bruce Wayne. Wayne finds
himself running around frantically trying to save friends (and,
interestingly, employees) from the chaos and destruction wrought by the
final fight between Superman and General Zod. Faced with the sorrow and
grief caused by all of the collateral damage, Wayne begins to harbor
animosity towards Superman that festers as the film plays on. Fast
forward to about two years after Man of Steel ends. Superman has become a
kind of "on call" hero figure, appearing around the world to thwart
evil wherever it may arise, while working as a journalist for the
Metropolis newspaper The Daily Planet as his alter ego Clark Kent.
Despite saving the world from General Zod and becoming a kind of
celebrity figure, overall doing good throughout the world, Superman also
has his share of detractors, including influential public officials in
the U.S. Senate. These detractors see Superman as a kind of
authoritarian figure, or a figure of unlimited power without any kind of
checks or balances. Among them is the young, wealthy business and
engineering tycoon Lex Luthor, who, through some shady business dealings
around the world, comes across a large chunk of Kryptonite from Zod's
failed attempt at terraforming Earth, found not far from a beach off the
coast of the Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, across the river from Metropolis in Gotham City, Batman continues to live up
to his reputation as the mysterious vigilante, using his various gadgets
and gizmos to bring evil-doers to justice, who, as far as this film is
concerned, are usually petty street thugs. Of course, both heroes get
their share of face time in the local media, Batman usually portrayed as
a rogue vigilante, Superman as the paragon of righteousness, a messiah
to some, a burgeoning dictator to others, including Wayne and Luthor.
And it is through the media that Superman develops the perception that
Batman is a kind of oppressor, skulking around the underbelly of Gotham
to intimidate and threaten the destitute and dispossessed, many of whom
have to resort to petty crime in order to survive. While this rivalry is
developing, Luthor lobbies certain members of the U.S. Congress to help
him weaponize the chunk of Kryptonite he managed to get his hands on as
a kind of deterrent to Superman. After his proposal is ultimately
rejected, he bombs the U.S. Capitol building, indirectly implicating
Superman in the process. Wayne is then given reason to suspect Luthor of
foul play, so, after researching recent projects that Luthor has been
working on, Batman then manages to steal the chunk of Kryptonite from
Luthor and uses it to create a spear designed to kill Superman.
Eventually, with a little bit of coercion from Lex Luthor, our two
heroes meet face to face and duke it out. That is, until the eventual
interference of Lois Lane who manages to convince Batman to help
Superman stop Luthor from using General Zod's ship to create an
abominable Krypton creature. By the time our heroes put aside their
differences, however, it is too late. The creature is released and the
end of the film consists of our two heroes trying to find a way to stop
it, eventually even getting help from Wonder Woman, who, quite
literally, appears from nowhere.
As can be inferred from my opening evaluation of Batman v Superman at
the outset, my overall impression of the film was pretty dismal. Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice more or less embodies everything that is
wrong with superhero films, arguably even more so than the Avengers.
It's difficult to even find a place to start critiquing it, there are so
many to choose from. Perhaps the narrative and characters are a good
place. Frankly, the story was mediocre and the character development is
more or less what I would expect for a superhero movie, which is to say,
virtually non-existent. I will admit that, while there are several
comic series and superhero movies that I really enjoy (including
Batman), Superman was never among them. The Superman series always
struck me as boring and uninteresting. Superman is just too ridiculously
overpowered - he flies, is faster than "a speeding bullet",
near-impervious to damage (unless, of course, he is around Kryptonite),
and shoots lasers out of his eyes, not to mention the fact he is jacked
with an 8-pack and his pectorals always look like they are about to
burst out of his shirt. He has virtually no flaws, and, for the flaws
that he does have, they are not easy to exploit. Quite literally, the
only creatures that stand a chance against Superman are otherwordly,
much like the creature at the end of Dawn of Justice. But then, at this
point, we have gone beyond the willful "suspension of disbelief" and
completely detached the narrative from the viewers, instead focusing on
an absolutely over-the-top fight between two ridiculously overpowered
creatures. I continue to find myself perplexed by the fact that people
are actually entertained by this - one thing that can make fiction
really interesting is watching the characters grow and develop - watch
their flaws be exploited, watch them learn from their mistakes, and
watch them cope with everyday life, which makes them relatable to an
audience. None of this applies to Superman (unless, of course, you're a
shredded hunk with an 8-pack who can shoot lasers out of his eyes).
Of course, the film's problems
go well beyond those of Superman. The overall narrative was a minefield
of plot holes, arguably leaving more questions than it answered. Why
exactly was Lex Luthor so hell-bent on destroying Superman? Luthor was
portrayed as one who has a kind of fanatic devotion to the cause of
destroying Superman, but his motivating factors are never made clear.
Bruce Wayne at least had the excuse of revenge, but Luthor never seemed
to have anything to worry about when it came Superman. Was Luthor always
this fanatical, even before Superman appeared? Even in the first five
minutes of his screen time, Lex Luthor gave off the impression that he
belonged in a straight jacket, leaving one to wonder how exactly he got
to where he was as the CEO of LexCorp. Granted, a Superman fanboy may
try to refer me to the comics for answers and attempt to defend Dawn of
Justice's portrayal of Lex Luthor with religious zeal, but this would be
a poor cop-out. Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series was able to give an
adequate backstory to Bruce Wayne/Batman without having to refer the
audience to the comics for answers. Speaking of Batman, there also
seemed to be a gross disconnect between this iteration of Batman, and
the character archetype set for him in the previous
films (and, if I may say so, this iteration of Batman is even at odds
with the characterization of him in the Emmy Award-winning animated series
from the 1990s). Specifically, there are several points in the film
where Batman is portrayed with guns and actually using them to kill
people, such as his vision of the future where he leads a resistance
against Superman, as well as his big fight scene with Luthor's Russian
henchmen while trying to save Superman's adoptive mother. This is
starkly at odds with the identity of Batman established for him in
previous film iterations; Batman famously doesn't kill people, let alone use
guns to harm others, preferring usually to just beat them into
submission. It's one thing to reboot a character, or take a character in
a different direction (clearly, Chris Nolan's Dark Knight is radically
different from the Tim Burton version of Batman from the late 80s/early
90s), but it's an entirely different thing to break away from one of the core traits
that has come to define the character. This would be like having Captain America
suddenly start fighting for Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, something
wholly incoherent with the character.
The introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League
didn't help the film's odds either. In fact, their introduction felt a
bit rushed; this is only the second installment of the DC Cinematic
Universe and already we have the Justice League assembling on screen.
I'm sure this is DC's and Warner Bros' attempt at catching up with
Marvel's Avengers, but, as is typical with Warner Bros., they are just
making things worse, and are always late to the party (see Mortal Kombat
vs DC Universe). There were five installments in the Marvel Cinematic
Universe before the release of the first Avengers film, allowing Marvel
to really dig deep into the narratives of each of our primary
protagonists, however silly those may (or may not) have been. With DC,
however, it looks like they just want to skip to the part where a whole
bunch of random superheroes appear on screen at the same time. This is a
pity because it makes Wonder Woman's appearance feel very rushed and
arbitrary; she is literally given no background at all, other than
arguably a random photo from what looks to be World War II, and just
shows up out of nowhere to help Batman and Superman fight the Krypton
creature at the end. There is so much potential with Wonder Woman; this
is her first really big live-action iteration, but the character's background
wasn't established at all. And while there is a full-blown Wonder Woman
movie in production for a slated 2017 release, it doesn't really help
Dawn of Justice for it to be released after the fact. A similar
criticism can be aimed at this version of Batman - there is a lot of
untapped potential here as well. One of the defining characteristics of
Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series is the fact that he tried to situate
Batman in the realm of crime drama, using believable villains and
mobsters as the scourge of Gotham that Batman is dealing with. This
framework inevitably ruled out some of Batman's more "sci-fi"
antagonists, such as Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze. I think there is an
opportunity here in the DC Cinematic Universe to really push Affleck's
Batman, and perhaps revisit some of these more sci-fi villains that,
while wholly inconsistent with the Nolan version of Batman, would seem
plausible given what we have seen so far in Man of Steel and Dawn of
Justice. Besides, it would take little effort to improve upon Poison Ivy
and Mr. Freeze since their last silver screen appearance in 1997's
Batman and Robin ("WHAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS?"). In fact, on that note,
it might even be a good idea to revisit the Riddler as well (one of my
personal favorite Batman villains, along with the Scarecrow).
Is there anything that Dawn of
Justice does well? Well, yes and no. The area where I can give praise
to Dawn of Justice is in its special effects, but, at the same time, I
could also make the case that this works to its detriment. Make no
mistake, Warner Bros. pumped a lot of money into making sure that Dawn
of Justice was at the forefront of special effects, from Superman's eye
lasers, to Bruce Wayne's apocalyptic dreamscape, to General Zod's
crashed ship. This is in stark contrast to The 5th Wave, that alien
invasion movie from earlier in the year that didn't look like an alien
invasion at all, partially because of a lack of special effects. Dawn of
Justice is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. But that's
also the thing that works against it. While The 5th Wave had no special
effects at all, Dawn of Justice feels like it was directed by Michael
Bay and seems to have gone completely overboard with its special
effects. In many ways, I can't fault Dawn of Justice for this; this
seems like the inevitable side effect of having Superman in your movies,
and such an addiction to special effects, by this point, seems inherent
to superhero films, as evidenced by the Avengers. But again, we can
contrast Dawn of Justice and the Avengers with Nolan's Dark Knight
series. Another thing that works in favor of Nolan's Batman films is the
fact that they are not over-laced with special effects, making them more
relatable, and facilitating the suspension of disbelief. It's difficult
to maintain that when the primary protagonist just drops in to a
terrorist stronghold and begins shooting lasers out of his eyes.
Overall, my dissatisfaction with Dawn of Justice can be summarized by
two major points. First, DC has a tendency to show up late to the party,
so to speak, and, as a result, everything seems so rushed and
incomplete. Much in the same way the Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe
didn't offer anything above and beyond Marvel vs. Capcom, Dawn of
Justice doesn't really offer anything that sets it apart from the
Avengers. In fact, the Marvel Cinematic Universe at least developed its
primary characters by giving them their own individual stories,
something sorely lacking from the DC Cinematic Universe. Second, Dawn of
Justice appears to have also jumped on the bandwagon of over-done and
unnecessary special effects, using that as a mere distraction from an
otherwise silly and underdeveloped plot. Like my feelings towards the
Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would be much more interested in the
characters' individual stories; there are a lot of unique character
points that could be had with Batman and Wonder Woman, and I think
developing those characters individually would greatly benefit the
series before cramming them together into a hodge-podge of convoluted
superhero action. On that note, though, this gives us something to look
forward to in the Wonder Woman film due out next summer. And, speaking
of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, now that Dawn of Justice is out of the
way, this paves the way for Captain America: Civil War as the next big
superhero film coming out in the next several weeks.
Lastly, I bring some good news
for my (currently nonexistent) fans: I believe I have finally found an
outlet for my writing in the form of LIKEYOUSAID Magazine. A
punk/alternative music magazine based out of Boston, I have been in
talks with one of the lead editors to contribute rock-related articles
to their cause. As those get published, it is my intention to also post
them to the blog. My first submission for the magazine, "Is 2016 the
Most Punk Year in U.S. Politics?", should hopefully be making it to
the "Features" column of LIKEYOUSAID soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment