Posted on

“BvS: Dawn of Justice” Review

I saw “Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice” last night.

Checking Rotten Tomatoes, I see that the film is currently sitting at a 29%, which is a worrying thing to see before you go watch the movie that has been so poorly rated.

Were the critics right? Well, I could give a short answer, but that would seem very out of character for these write-ups.

I’m not certain what film the critics were watching, frankly. It’s possible that they were expecting something lighthearted and goofy like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’ which is a great movie (I thought), but that’s just not the tone of a Batman/Superman film.

Perhaps they wanted a straight, run-of-the-mill action film, with no character development, and no challenging themes, but that’s not what I expect from a good DC film, and that’s not what ‘Dawn of Justice’ provides.

This is not a particularly lighthearted film. If you’ve seen ‘Man of Steel,’ (and you should- it’s fantastic) you’ll know that Superman’s most recent tussle with General Zod left Metropolis a bit of a mess, and this, in turn, has left many people wondering if the Man of Steel has everyone’s best interests at heart. Bruce Wayne, in the opening scene, is personally there to witness the devastation that rocked Metropolis to its core during the battle, and it’s little wonder that he carries his own skepticism about Superman’s righteousness.

The dialogue is great, as is the characterization of the various comic icons that we’re seeing on-screen. The film is pretty dialogue-heavy for the first act or two, which might throw some people off, but…stick around. Trust me.

The film looks fantastic. The visuals are rich, often leaning a little noir (particularly during the Batman segments), with striking detail and bombastic special effects. The costumes are wonderful- I assume you all saw the ‘Dark Knight Returns’-inspired armor that Batman is wearing in the trailer, with the glowing eyes? The clunky style that Frank Miller put onto paper back when he made the comic is transferred onto film with remarkable success.

Hans Zimmer did the score. Hans Zimmer does great scores (apart from whatever was going on with “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.” That was pretty lame.). This film, therefore, has a great score.

The acting is great. I already knew Henry Cavill wore the red cape with pride and power, and the movie hasn’t been made where Jeremy Irons isn’t the best thing ever, but Ben Affleck surprised me by turning in what might very well be the best live-action portrayal of the Dark Knight I’ve seen, though MIchael Keaton may well still be on top there. Jesse Eisenberg played Lex Luthor as a half-cracked eccentric, which was a fresh direction to take the character, and one that I very much appreciated. My favorite performance, though, might actually have to go to Gal Gadot as Diana, who has one reaction during a battle with the (no spoilers here) big bad guy that topped my list of favorite moments during the film- it was a brief, fleeting facial expression that captured the character perfectly and elegantly. Beautiful work by the whole cast.

The action is stellar, once it gets going. I had the same reaction during the fight scenes that I did watching ‘Creed:’ involuntary exclamations whenever a particularly devastating punch lands.

The opening credits are as good as those of “Deadpool.” Not as funny, of course, but simply and elegantly catching the audience up to the backstory of Bruce Wayne, with some truly impressive visuals.

Zack Snyder’s hand is pretty obvious in a few dream scenes, but unlike when such scenes appeared in “The Revenant,” they’re not contrived (they’re representing enormous stress, or possibly a revelation by a third party), and they’re not stupid. Indeed one of them, right in the middle of the film, is going to make the DC nerds really excited, and confuse everyone else until their DC nerd friends explain it to them.

All in all, I’m having trouble understanding what the critics were talking about. This is a buildup movie, sure- like “The Avengers,” only the dialogue is better and the characters aren’t shackled by having to be funny. (I quite like “The Avengers,” but I’ll stand by what I’ve said) And yes, this is a more serious film, but I’m not sure why that’s a strike against it- not every movie is a comedy, and this one in particular would have been weakened, were they to throw more jokes into the script.

It’s beautifully acted, subtly written, and has truly great visual and musical backing. It is one of the greatest superhero films I can remember seeing, and you should definitely go and see it, unless you’re one of those people who hates DC films. In that case, I’d tell you not to hold “Green Lantern” against DC – no one’s holding “Fant4stic” against Marvel .

Go see it. It’s brilliant, and it made me terribly excited for the unfolding DC cinematic universe.

Posted on

“Deadpool” Review

I saw ‘Deadpool’ last night with my good friend  Jettsen Keck. Before I go any further, I assume that some of you have seen the notices from Deadpool to children, warning them that this is not a children’s film. He’s right. It’s rated R for a reason, and it’s not a soft R. Don’t bring kids. Language, violence, adult content- the trifecta. Now that that’s said… if you’re of age, you can handle the above features of a hard R film, and you like a silly action superhero movie, go see ‘Deadpool.’ From the opening credits, I knew I was going to love this film – they’re self-referential and irreverent, and perfectly set the tone for what you’re about to watch.

Ryan Reynolds should enter a contest for smart-alecks. I think he’d win, or at least walk away with the silver or bronze. He is absolutely wonderful as the Merc with the Mouth, and whether he’s being genuinely funny, over-the-top childish, or frighteningly violent, it was a tremendously entertaining performance to watch. The rest of the cast tends to fall to the background, as expected, but did a fine job. My favorites were probably Ed Skrein as the delightfully hate-able Ajax, and Brianna Hildebrand as Negasonic Teenage Warhead (on which point, by the way, I agree with Deadpool when he said that hers was the coolest superhero name ever).

The action scenes are fast-paced and exhilarating, fun and exciting. The scenes are helped along by a truly fantastic soundtrack, including an eclectic mix of tracks from Wham! to DMX, and an original Deadpool rap that was genuinely funny.

Speaking of funny, this is something of a comedy. Comedy’s difficult to judge, as far as its effectiveness goes, because everyone’s threshold for humor is different. I am pretty picky when it comes to my comedies (something that my friend Branden has been quick to bring up when I talk about movies), so I am as surprised as I am pleased to say that I thought that the vast majority of jokes in ‘Deadpool’ were solid hits. Some are worth a half-smile, perhaps, but there were many times that I found myself laughing out loud in the theater. It’s funny. Irreverent and ridiculous, but undeniably funny.

The visuals are crisp and frenetic. The pacing is fast and exciting, splicing the origin story of the title character into a more ‘in the moment’ scene in a way that I thoroughly enjoyed. The action is great. The characters are fun. It’s FUNNY. Go see it.

And make sure you stay til the end. Not only are the ending credits amusing on their own, but Fox seems to have forgotten that this one isn’t a Marvel studios film. It’s good stuff.

Posted on

“13 Hours” Review

I saw “13 Hours” last night. I know everyone’s probably already seen this one, but I’m still going to do this. I don’t like Michael Bay much. I thought “The Rock” was an awesome movie, “Armageddon” was flawed, but had good moments…and he’s made other movies, as well. None of those ‘others’ have been more than cheap action schlock, in my opinion. The man has proven time and again that he doesn’t understand comedy, he doesn’t understand subtlety, and he worships the military with an almost fetishistic fanaticism. So, here was a military film from Michael Bay. I approached the theater with trepidation.

First of all, Michael Bay still cannot do subtlety. The quiet moments in-between action scenes are riddled with some pretty sub-standard dialogue, and characters are kind of boiled down into archetypes: the quiet, well-read one, the leader, the new guy, the jokester, and the tough old soldier. The CIA chief, in particular, is an absolute cartoon character, drawn as this incredible bureaucratic blowhard, which I think must be a ploy by the actual CIA to throw people off what they’re really like.

Secondly, Michael Bay still can’t really do comedy. Thankfully, there were far fewer characters like Sam’s parents in the ‘Transformers’ series, but there were still some awkward, cringey attempts at humor that just didn’t work at all. However, we’re dealing with barracks-room soldiers, so barracks-room humor is called for, and sometimes the jokes landed, and were actually entertaining, so he is improving.

My question going in, after having seen the “Transformers” series, “Pearl Harbor,” and the like, was “Can Michael Bay make a film in which the American flag is not poignantly destroyed, and then lingered on more than the deaths of actual characters?” My answer, as far as this film goes, is “no, he cannot.” I don’t feel that I’m spoiling anything by saying that.

However (and this is a big however), whatever the film’s shortcomings, when it wants to be tense and exciting…it can definitely be tense and exciting. The action scenes are great, managing to go from edge-of-your-seat tension to that involuntary grunting noise that (typically) guys make when someone gets hit really hard in a film.

The acting is also pretty solid. Look, I don’t like the characters in “The Office.” I think they fall under either “insufferable,” or “boring,” and John Krasinski’s Jim Halpert was definitely in the latter category. I admit that I blamed my lack of interest in Mr. Krasinski’s lack of talent, but he pulls off a really nice little performance here, tough and compassionate, and he’s only ever really let down by the script.

It’s not a perfect movie. The dialogue is amateurish, the characters can be a little archetypal and over-the-top, but the acting is solid and the action is great. If you’re interested in a pretty good military movie, and don’t mind the truly remarkable amount of bad language, then this isn’t a bad watch at all.

Posted on

“The Revenant” Review

I saw “The Revenant” last night. This might be a long one. No shock there, right?

I like Leonardo DiCaprio just fine. I think he’s a pretty solid actor, and he generally turns in a pretty solid performance. I know everyone thinks he’s been robbed of an Oscar every year ever, but I can’t say that I agree- I think he’s pretty good, and he’s generally beaten out by someone great. That said, he’s the main character of “The Revenant,” and his performance was…pretty good. Sorry. He was perfectly functional, and had some great moments, but it wasn’t a perfect, Oscar-worthy performance. Between the two “like Cast Away but in a different setting” films this year, Matt Damon from “The Martian” delivered, in my opinion, a better performance.

However, this film did have a couple of truly standout actors. Tom Hardy stole almost every scene that he was in- it was truly wonderful to watch, even if you could call his voice “redneck Bane.” My favorite performance from the whole thing, though, was Domhnall Gleeson, as Captain Andrew Henry. He has one scene between him and Will Poulter (who also did a fine job) that was easily my favorite sequence of the film, for its raw emotion.

So, the acting was good, approaching great in several places. So too was the camerawork. This film favored those grand, sweeping shots that you see in nature documentaries, only without the sweep. “The Revenant” was very content to let shots linger, showing us a massive piece of landscape, with a character trudging along in the middle of it, lost in the vastness of their surroundings. It was all very pretty and impressive, particularly the use of light and fog, which allowed for some truly gorgeous shots.

The soundtrack… now that I’m thinking back on it, I can’t remember much of it. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, for two reasons. One, this is the kind of film that benefits from contemplative silence. Two, the one piece of music I do remember was a sudden, heart-rending swell, straight out of a Hallmark movie.

Now we come to the plot, and the scenes in general. Look, “The Revenant” is essentially “Cast Away” meets “Hatchet” (the book about wilderness survival, not the slasher film) meets “Kill Bill.” And that’s fine with me. I like a good survival movie, and I like a good revenge movie, and I really liked “Hatchet” (the book about wilderness survival, not the slasher film). And the parts of the film that are following that storyline are great. The action is intense, watching DiCaprio’s Glass survive is interesting, and the cinematography is really pretty. Unfortunately, this film suffers from several different conditions.

The first is “Gladiator” disease, or possibly “Zack Snyder-itis.” I like “Gladiator,” and I like most of Snyder’s films, but if you’ve seen any of those, I think you’ll know what I’m talking about. The incessant flash-back scenes, shot in a really, REALLY artsy manner, both to generate sympathy for the main character, and to make the movie look really artsy. The difference is that both “Gladiator” and “Man of Steel” show the characters that show up in the artsy flash-backs beforehand, allowing us to know them even a little bit, so that we care about them. In both cases, it shows us what the title character is fighting for. This just wasn’t the case in “The Revenant,” as the character that features most prominently in those scenes has (spoilers, but not really) been dead since well before the movie began, and DiCaprio isn’t fighting for them.

The second condition doesn’t have as pithy a name. It’s something I blame on mainstream drama in general, so I’ll go with “TWD-osis” (that’s “The Walking Dead,” by the way). This basically means that the plot is driven by what will generate the most drama, rather than what makes sense for the scene in question. It’s not a constant issue, and it’s a relatively minor one, but it did happen once or twice, and it was pretty obvious when it did. I think I can probably blame most of these issues on the book, though, as this film is an adaptation.

Thirdly, this movie has chronic B-plot. There is a side story in this film that takes way, WAY too much time out of the main plot. It is actually staggering how pointless the whole thing is, as well- I was waiting for a payoff, something that would make me think, “Oh, that’s why they included this,” but it never happened.

Finally, fatally, this movie was Sundance Syndrome. It’s trying so hard to be an arthouse film that it comes right around and starts being irritating and/or annoying. As an example of each: there is a moment during a flashback scene where the deceased character appears levitating, facedown, above our main character, who is lying on the ground, looking up, and they just stare at each other. I burst out laughing here, because it didn’t look poignant- it looked ridiculous. On a less funny, and more annoying note, there were multiple occasions when DiCaprio’s breath would fog up the camera lens. In an attempt to be more artsy, the film completely pulled me out of its setting. There was nothing nearby that could have been fogging up- he was breathing directly into a camera. These decisions are baffling to me.

I can’t say that the film isn’t good, because it is. It’s got some pretty great acting, some pretty great cinematography, and some pretty great action. But I can say that the film is disappointing, because it is, depressingly so. I wanted so much to love this one, and I just couldn’t. It tried too hard to be too many things, and so none of its many hats are quite the right fit. I’ve said before that a film should be either “Interstellar” (i.e. a work of art, a great film), or “Sahara” (i.e. a lot of fun, a great movie), in order to be good, and that some films can be both. “The Revenant” was suited more for the “Sahara” camp, I think, but it tried far too hard to be “Interstellar” as well, and so it didn’t quite reach either camp. It’s worth watching, particularly if you don’t analyze things as incessantly as I do, but it’s hardly the top film of the year. Well, I mean, it kind of is, since it’s one of the first major releases this year, but you know what I mean.