I've been fighting the flu since last Friday; today was the first day I felt well enough to brave venturing outside and going to the movie theatre. I may have been hasty in that, as I feel pretty wiped, but here's what I can manage for a review:
Even before the reviews started to come out, I expected that I would have problems with this movie. I disliked MoS so much, and Snyder's aesthetic tastes are so far from my own, that I just didn't see how this could be my cup of tea. Each new trailer further drove that feeling home, and the fact that the trailers ended giving away so much just further poisoned a sense of enthusiasm.
Now that I've seen it: this is a very, very overstuffed movie with very, very big problems, and it is by and large not my cup of tea. Zack Snyder and Hans Zimmer both fail yet again to make me come around on their tastes, or in Snyder's case, to think that he doesn't have some serious weaknesses at his craft. I'm not really excited for anything on the slate for DC other than Wonder Woman after seeing this movie. But with all that said, I did like it better that MoS (that one was 5 out of 10 for me; I'd give BvS a 6. High praise, I know.)
I may expand on some of this later when I'm not hacking up a lung, but some quick highs/lows:
- Great work in costume design. Honestly. This is the first time I've been truly charmed by a design element in a DC film since...well, since the Burton/Schumacher days, to be honest. The only thing I missed from wardrobe was longer bat-ears (we got the short stubs with Nolan for three films, bring back some proper ears!)
- I liked Gal Gadot. She did not need to be in the movie.
- Lois Lane barely needed to be in this movie. I've seen people crying "huzzah!" at the "I'm not a lady, I'm a journalist" line, but that line is 1. terrible and 2. doesn't excuse the fact that, like in MoS, she's basically just there to get saved, and doesn't accomplish anything for the plot that couldn't have been handled more logically by another character.
- The JL set-up material didn't need to be in this movie. Other than serving as teasers for future films, what does it accomplish? Was the idea of Batman and Superman coming into conflict not enough to occupy the full run time?
- Eisenberg as Lex: you either love it, or you hate it. I hated it. I'll give him props for trying to take it to a threatening place by the end, but it didn't do it for me. The guy was just too silly.
- As a member of the Burton faithful, I've long come to terms with the idea that people will not enjoy certain elements of his work with Batman due to the wild departures he made from the source material. Would some of these people like to tell me how they handled Snyder's work with Jimmy Olsen? 'Cause I thought that was a load of bull, and Snyder's explanation for it just made it worse. (His tapdances to try and defend his controversial choices are getting old IMO.)
- I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. Branding aside, that scene in the sex dungeon could completely work as a standard Batman take-down. And his Bruce Wayne, at certain points, acted more like I imagine him than any film to-date. But Affleck is too young and too good-looking to totally sell the idea of a Batman who's been in operation for two decades. With everything else Snyder cribbed from TDKR, why not go for an older, more grizzled look?
- I'll give Snyder credit: the "Martha" thing took some guts. I'm impressed with how many people it did it for. I thought it sort of worked; my biggest problem with that moment is that Batman had become so psychotic by the time he was about to use the spear, that while the name "Martha" may make him stop, I didn't buy the wholesale turnaround in attitude that gets made so quickly right after.
- Irons killed it as Alfred.
- Nice to see Thomas Wayne finally get his mustache. Wonder why they couldn't give Alfred his.
- I seem to be a minority on this, but I've never been all that intrigued by "does the world need a Superman" type stories or discussions. As something to do once on a TV show, or for a limited comic run, it's a valid story, but two have two movies now where Supes is emotionally conflicted, often brooding and lonely, unsure of his place in the world, and Congress is holding committees on him as talking head Neil DeGrasse Tyson pontificates on CNN?
I take a view on Superman that I've seen best explained by Mark Waid: Superman was designed to literally do the impossible. He was designed to be better than us, not one of us. He isn't built for no-win scenarios. To take such a clearly unrealistic character and to apply this sort of "does the world need it" type conflicts to him, as his main issue for a film adaptation...I won't say that it's as ridiculous as doing that with Bugs Bunny, but the arguments against it are similar to the ones I could give for doing that with Bugs.
- People always talk about comics being modern American mythology. I've read my fair share of mythology and folklore. Most of it isn't all that preoccupied with trying to prove how deep, timely, and important it is. There is way too much dialogue in this film that's obsessed with explaining and discussing themes and implications, its meaning, and its purpose. I've had this problem since Nolan, but until now, I've never known how to articulate it other than just shoving it under the "too much exposition" banner.
- Doomsday: weak design, weak CGI, weak fight. And felt tossed in.
- "Death of Superman" moment: didn't feel earned. A lot like Jonathan Kent's death from MoS, actually. What reason is there that Wonder Woman can't be the one to wield the spear? It'd give her a more concrete reason to be in this flick.
- Speaking of Jonathan Kent: "Superman was nothing but the dream of a father in Kansas." A father from Krypton, more like. Did you just blank out the fact that Kansas-Dad thought you might be better off letting a busload of kids drown?
That's all I got for now.
Even before the reviews started to come out, I expected that I would have problems with this movie. I disliked MoS so much, and Snyder's aesthetic tastes are so far from my own, that I just didn't see how this could be my cup of tea. Each new trailer further drove that feeling home, and the fact that the trailers ended giving away so much just further poisoned a sense of enthusiasm.
Now that I've seen it: this is a very, very overstuffed movie with very, very big problems, and it is by and large not my cup of tea. Zack Snyder and Hans Zimmer both fail yet again to make me come around on their tastes, or in Snyder's case, to think that he doesn't have some serious weaknesses at his craft. I'm not really excited for anything on the slate for DC other than Wonder Woman after seeing this movie. But with all that said, I did like it better that MoS (that one was 5 out of 10 for me; I'd give BvS a 6. High praise, I know.)
I may expand on some of this later when I'm not hacking up a lung, but some quick highs/lows:
- Great work in costume design. Honestly. This is the first time I've been truly charmed by a design element in a DC film since...well, since the Burton/Schumacher days, to be honest. The only thing I missed from wardrobe was longer bat-ears (we got the short stubs with Nolan for three films, bring back some proper ears!)
- I liked Gal Gadot. She did not need to be in the movie.
- Lois Lane barely needed to be in this movie. I've seen people crying "huzzah!" at the "I'm not a lady, I'm a journalist" line, but that line is 1. terrible and 2. doesn't excuse the fact that, like in MoS, she's basically just there to get saved, and doesn't accomplish anything for the plot that couldn't have been handled more logically by another character.
- The JL set-up material didn't need to be in this movie. Other than serving as teasers for future films, what does it accomplish? Was the idea of Batman and Superman coming into conflict not enough to occupy the full run time?
- Eisenberg as Lex: you either love it, or you hate it. I hated it. I'll give him props for trying to take it to a threatening place by the end, but it didn't do it for me. The guy was just too silly.
- As a member of the Burton faithful, I've long come to terms with the idea that people will not enjoy certain elements of his work with Batman due to the wild departures he made from the source material. Would some of these people like to tell me how they handled Snyder's work with Jimmy Olsen? 'Cause I thought that was a load of bull, and Snyder's explanation for it just made it worse. (His tapdances to try and defend his controversial choices are getting old IMO.)
- I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. Branding aside, that scene in the sex dungeon could completely work as a standard Batman take-down. And his Bruce Wayne, at certain points, acted more like I imagine him than any film to-date. But Affleck is too young and too good-looking to totally sell the idea of a Batman who's been in operation for two decades. With everything else Snyder cribbed from TDKR, why not go for an older, more grizzled look?
- I'll give Snyder credit: the "Martha" thing took some guts. I'm impressed with how many people it did it for. I thought it sort of worked; my biggest problem with that moment is that Batman had become so psychotic by the time he was about to use the spear, that while the name "Martha" may make him stop, I didn't buy the wholesale turnaround in attitude that gets made so quickly right after.
- Irons killed it as Alfred.
- Nice to see Thomas Wayne finally get his mustache. Wonder why they couldn't give Alfred his.
- I seem to be a minority on this, but I've never been all that intrigued by "does the world need a Superman" type stories or discussions. As something to do once on a TV show, or for a limited comic run, it's a valid story, but two have two movies now where Supes is emotionally conflicted, often brooding and lonely, unsure of his place in the world, and Congress is holding committees on him as talking head Neil DeGrasse Tyson pontificates on CNN?
I take a view on Superman that I've seen best explained by Mark Waid: Superman was designed to literally do the impossible. He was designed to be better than us, not one of us. He isn't built for no-win scenarios. To take such a clearly unrealistic character and to apply this sort of "does the world need it" type conflicts to him, as his main issue for a film adaptation...I won't say that it's as ridiculous as doing that with Bugs Bunny, but the arguments against it are similar to the ones I could give for doing that with Bugs.
- People always talk about comics being modern American mythology. I've read my fair share of mythology and folklore. Most of it isn't all that preoccupied with trying to prove how deep, timely, and important it is. There is way too much dialogue in this film that's obsessed with explaining and discussing themes and implications, its meaning, and its purpose. I've had this problem since Nolan, but until now, I've never known how to articulate it other than just shoving it under the "too much exposition" banner.
- Doomsday: weak design, weak CGI, weak fight. And felt tossed in.
- "Death of Superman" moment: didn't feel earned. A lot like Jonathan Kent's death from MoS, actually. What reason is there that Wonder Woman can't be the one to wield the spear? It'd give her a more concrete reason to be in this flick.
- Speaking of Jonathan Kent: "Superman was nothing but the dream of a father in Kansas." A father from Krypton, more like. Did you just blank out the fact that Kansas-Dad thought you might be better off letting a busload of kids drown?
That's all I got for now.
