Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Directed by Zack Snyder. Starring Henry Cavil, and Ben Affleck3/24/2016 There’s a film out there—not a good one—called Pompeii. You probably don’t remember it because admittedly it’s kind of terrible, except one moment. At the very end, the film plays a moment of such sweep, such a delicate camera, such a cathartic moment. It’s not effective enough to save the movie though. It’s a perfect moment that a movie like itself doesn’t deserve. Pompeii is Batman v Superman. Batman v Superman doesn’t deserve its rousing moments. It’s too incompetent otherwise. That hurts too. Man of Steel, for all it’s violence, was a full blooded and earnest action movie. Superman was a likeable and inspiring character, and each of the other characters were given something heroic to do. It was structured well. It was almost poetic in its use of imagery. Batman v Superman retains that for its first scene, which is probably the most excellently staged killing of Batman’s parents put to screen. But then it cuts to the ground level view of the attack of Metropolis, and problems seem to rise immediately. The usually still camera of Zack Snyder is shakier than it usually is, Superman is no longer heroic. Cut to a generic and deflated desert area… oh god. No. The blood is gone. The personal drama. The moment of awe when Perry White stares into the eye’s of his weeping employee caught under the rubble of Metropolis, as the Man of Steel gets up finally to win. Anything of that sort is lacked here, and that’s probably a focus issue...or maybe it’s just Batman. Hell if I know...guys let me level with you here; I’m wildly caught off guard. I haven’t seen such an empty piece of work since...well maybe Pompeii. Batman v Superman is indiscernible from it’s predecessor. Sure, Man of Steel was washed out, but it had hope. Batman v Superman has one excellent villain (Jesse Eisenberg is about the only thing that works here), well choreographed but sloppily photographed fight scenes, and the WORST TYPE OF BATMAN YOU CAN HAVE. I watch movies for the feeling I get from the good ones. I like Superman because it means something to me that a person on Earth with all the power in the world would use it for good. I like Batman because...well everyone gets angry and wish fulfillment is awesome. I like Lois Lane because will they won’t they bull is awesome. I like Wonder Woman because she’s abjectly feminine, and because she is a well drawn female character that doesn’t even prompt the conversation of how she can kick as much ass as the men. She’s just Wonder Woman. Yet, with this movie I saw a Superman that was looked down on and didn’t use his powers for good. I saw a Batman that I wouldn’t want to be. I saw a Lois Lane that said she loved Superman, but lacked the ability to show it, and I saw a Wonder Woman who...actually she was fucking awesome and completely in character. And yes it might be just because my versions of Superman and Batman aren’t there, but the filmmaking incompetency here is still apparent. Snyder, usually a great visual stylist, presents images that shake, and disorient the audience. Why pay $400 million dollars on a movie if the audience can’t properly see it? I don’t blame you if you look down on this review. It’s sloppy, fragmented, and probably not worth your time, but I guess that’s the perfect way to convey this movie. Go see Zootopia, or 10 Cloverfield Lane. You’ll be happy after those.
1 Comment
The first two Divergent movies were fine films that fell apart on a storytelling level; but ultimately, they had so much passion infused into what they wanted to be, that they managed to have something actually good. Sure, the only point of them was to be blatant YA-genre ripoffs using every trick in the book to make the film as appealable to the mass audience as possible, but Shailene Woodley tried, and the Neil Burger, and Robert Schwentke tried. Allegiant is the first film where the essence of “tried” has left the movie, and that almost works to it’s advantage. That may sound counterintuitive, but it’s a completely valid point. Allegiant, at first glance is not that bad. It’s pretty bad, but it’s bad in the good kind of way. Schwentke, the director of the last one, almost seems to have just given up on the series. That’s ok though. His sense of direction has seemed to become so tiresome and laughable that the film becomes funny. That tone would have actually worked really well for the series, allowing it to jump into self parody, instead of nobly fizzling out like The Hunger Games did. The whole thing has a manic energy at this point, and Miles Teller’s overly sarcastic and painfully unfunny sensibilities draw everything out of this thin, flaccid material. Divergent could have become something other than a normal, as is YA-genre entry. But then it starts to take itself seriously, and the entire thing goes to hell. There’s not so much to say for story here, but the simplicity of the set up fits the film better here. It’s only when the film notices that it actually is supposed to progress somewhere that it seems to actually do that but without thinking of a logical or interesting place to go. Jeff Daniels stands around looking evil for a good 90 minutes until we are immediately told that he is evil losing all weight that this character could have had. The film however is very serious about this man, so when the audience doesn’t care, the piece just falls apart. It’s not just Jeff Daniels, but that’s just one of many things. As the production starts caring about what happens, the less we can laugh at the movie, and the less we can make anything out of it. Shailene Woodley is a great actress, but she’ll probably write this one off as a contract piece, as will everyone else. Allegiant has finally driven the series into the territory of “bad,” and it’s sad to see this franchise go. Divergent’s chances of being “good” 2014-2016. I give Allegiant a 3.5 out of 10. 10 Cloverfield Lane is so intense and scary at times that it brings tears to the eyes and makes you sweat. The reason: juxtaposition of power. A good horror movie is good because it takes all power away from the audience. 10 Cloverfield Lane is better because it lets you have a glorious taste of it, and then strips you of it all leaving you a wreck. The filmmaking on display here is unprecedented. This is a beautiful mix of everything the insanity of Fincher and the wonder of Spielberg. And this power is central to all the themes that make the film awesome in almost every single way. Dan Trachtenberg’s direction immediately reveals itself to be a master class of thriller filmmaking because of it. He teases the audience with power throughout the entirety of scenes showing establishing shots of items in the middle of action scenes that the characters will use immediately allowing telling the audience that this item will be integral in the character escaping the situation that they are currently in. There’s a twist to him setting up the scenes like this. On the flipside, this scene structure becomes so apparent that when it’s used in intense scenes that are playing against the audience; aka scenes when the item is not used to help escape, but instead brutally hurt it leaves us in an emotional panic picturing the many horrible things that could happen. It’s actually really clever as Trachtenberg uses his own ingenious scene structure to leave the audience in a state of shock...caused by themselves. We get all the power in scenes when they know the character will escape. We lose it all in the scenes when we know they won’t. If you’re wondering why no story has been mentioned...well this is a film built on the way the story progresses so knowing nothing of it is much better. What can be said is that the actors are all game for the continuing havok they thrust upon the audience. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is expertly cast as Michelle embodying one of the best female characters in a film in years. Michelle is actually the toughest character in the entire film, and trumps the other characters. John Goodman shows a reason for being relevant in the modern film industry... other than playing characters from the old film industry (Argo and more recently Trumbo). Goodman is playing a hard role having to fluctuate from happy to intimidating. Both Winstead and Goodman kind of outshine John Gallagher Jr. (Jim from The Newsroom) but Gallagher is still very interesting, and is actually given the most character as Goodman’s is only hinted at and Winstead’s is more about her actions. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a small scale work, but as you can tell it’s an excellently executed film. The only problems manifest in the fact that the ending seems a little rushed. This piece of work is so intelligently put together that it’s close to a masterpiece of suspense. Go see it I implore you. 10 Cloverfield Lane gets a 9.5 out of 10. There’s not a lot of material to write about Eddie the Eagle because it walks the line between being bad, and just working enough to actually make itself entertaining. That has a lot to do with juxtaposition, and the filmmakers best idea here was to make it over the top. The story of Eddie Edwards (Taron Egerton) is pretty amazing, but also ridiculous. He achieved a dream, but did so by losing really well in a situation that lost his parents lots of money. There’s a darker aspect to that story (especially since Eddie’s father in this movie is played as an angry man brought down by the class system of England), but the film never lets that become apparent. It would have been smart to maybe express that elephant in the room, but the film doesn’t bother with it. Instead the filmmakers go another way. It’s a way that mostly works, but lacks any nuance. What they did? They made the entire film as over the top as possible. All depth goes straight out the window, but what it’s replaced with is a thin structure of a film blasting on level 11 the entire time. The film is best personified by its most over the top and therefore best sequence, in which HUGH JACKMAN WEARING THE MOST BUTCH LOOKING OUTFIT IN THE WORLD DRINKS FROM A FLASK, LIGHTS AND SMOKES A CIGARETTE AS HE DOES A 90 METER SKI JUMP WITH EASE AS THE CAMERA LOVINGLY USES SPEED AND SLOW MOTION TACTICS TO MAKE IT AS AWESOME AS POSSIBLE. If that sounds awesome too you you’ll probably enjoy a lot of what Eddie the Eagle has to offer. If not, you won’t. The actors equip themselves well in this situation. A lot of the script is only implied, and the actors energy is all there is to fill in the blanks. Edgerton is doing a better mimicry then this film deserves, and Jackman just sells the whole “badass” mold. The film also manages to make ski jumping exciting. This might be the contrast of danger that the film throws in at once making it look easy, and at another time showing someone break their neck, and quickly flop down a hill. This leads to each jump being really, and creates real stakes by the end of the film. As Eddie prepares to jump you’ll want to jump out of your seat. That’s all Eddie the Eagle has to offer,and it’s up to the audience to decide whether or not it’s actually good. I give Eddie the Eagle a 6.5 out of 10. |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |