New-ish Releases, Spoiler-Free Reviews: Justice League (2017); It (2017)

Justice League (2017)

No Spoilers!

Director: Zack Snyder

This one was OK, which actually qualifies as a pleasant surprise to me.

Justice League was the fifth film in the "DC Extended Universe" (DCEU). After paying to see the underwhelming Man of Steel in 2013 and then the utter mess that was Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice a couple of years ago, I swore off paying theater prices to see any of the DCEU flicks. While I broke that vow to see Wonder Woman, after all of that movie's mostly-deserved high praise, that initial boycotting paid off by my avoiding the sloppy Suicide Squad. While I am glad that I didn't shell out theater price for Justice League, I have to say that it was a reasonably satisfying at-home rental.

The story picks up several of the ostentatiously dangling and flapping threads left over from Batman v. Superman. With Clark Kent/Superman's apparent death at the hands of the Doomsday monster, the alien conqueror Steppenwolf sees his chance to lead an assault on Earth and take over the planet. It's an attempt which he had made in the past, only to be rebuffed by the collective forces of several of earth's mythically powerful races. Now that Steppenwolf is back with a massive army of fear-feasting insectoids, Batman recruits one known ally, Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, to enlist the aid of other people with apparent superpowers. These lead them to band together a group that includes Barry "The Flash" Allen, Arthur "Aquaman" Curry, and Victor "Cyborg" Stone.

In most ways, the movie is fairly paint-by-numbers. I will admit that I suspect Joss Whedon, who was brought in to take over as writer/director after Snyder had a family tragedy to deal with, probably was responsible for some of the more intriguing and clever narrative ties in the film. I also wouldn't be surprised if he had a hand in writing some of the more engaging fight sequences. The one which I found most entertaining seemed very much like something we would have seen in The Avengers. Whether it was Whedon or co-writer Chris Terrio, this movie definitely had the lighter tone and funnier gags that Batman v. Superman was painfully lacking. It still wasn't nearly on par with the best MCU or even X-Men flicks, but it was a clear improvement.

Jason Momoa certainly cuts a striking figure as Aquaman, but
the outline and dialogue never came together for me. Most of
the other characters were handled more deftly.

The core characters are a mixed bag. The villain Steppenwolf is dull - a typically one-dimensional warmonger who wants to crush everything in his path. The voice acting by Northern Irish acting veteran Ciaran Hinds is powerful, though. In terms of "The League," I found it hit-and-miss. I've personally never had a problem with Ben Affleck as Batman, and he continues to be fine here. Gal Gadot continues to be great as Wonder Woman, as well. Ezra Miller was rightfully hailed as maybe the biggest revelation in this one, as he plays the iconic Flash exceptionally well, lightening things up nicely. Cyborg, however, I found extremely dull, and this particular vision of Aquaman felt completely off to me. As a group, though, the good outweighed the bad, and the dynamics work well enough.

I can't say that Justice League won me back over to the DCEU, but it did give me an enjoyable two hours. Looking ahead, the film franchise's next movie is Aquaman, headed up by James Wan, known for recent "Fast...Furious" films and the recent Star Trek Beyond. Given my feelings for how Aquaman was handled in Justice League, and my apathy towards the Fast and Furious movies, I don't anticipate that I'll be seeing that one. I do hope that the powers behind the DCEU take some note of what worked in Justice League, though, as they really are sitting on a wealth of great fantasy characters whom they could use to make some wildly entertaining movies.

Spoilers!! You've Been Warned!

Great intro sequences with Wonder Woman. While her solo movie last year had some solid action scenes, her rescue at the bank was top-notch. And the sequence with the Amazons trying to defend the Mother Box from Steppenwolf's attack has some really fun visuals, too.

It was a brief moment, but I absolutely loved the moment when the Flash is running up on a still-deranged Superman, thinking his he has the jump on him, only to have the Man of Steel's eyes turn directly towards him, well aware of the Scarlet Speedster's approach. I have to think that that was a Joss Whedon addition, as it seems like just the type of subtle-but-awesome moment that Whedon has a knack for.

Speaking of Superman, it was probably the least surprising "twist" to bring him back in this one. It was handled fine, if not exactly in a compelling or creative way. The iconic superhero does serve as a half-decent deus ex machina, but he does raise the eternal concern with such a powerful character - how do you find a villain strong enough and interesting enough to contend with him, let alone him and his super-powered buddies?

It (2017)

Director: Andy Muschietti

A solid horror movie, if one that is drawing from several wells that have been heavily tapped by earlier scare flicks.

Based on the hit 1986 novel by popular horror master Stephen King, It follows a group of young kids in their pre- and early teens in the fictional town of Derry, Maine, a seemingly quaint little area that has a history of disturbingly high rate of missing children and horrific disasters. This tale begins in the summer of 1988, when a little boy, Georgie, is apparently sucked into a drainage opening by a monster masquerading as a circus clown. We fast forward a year, with Georgie's older brother, Bill, and his friends wrapping up the school year and looking forward to a summer of freedom. Soon, however, other children start to disappear, and Bill and his friends start to have terrifying hallucinations embodying their worst fears. Wrapped up with these fears isthe same clown, which calls itself Pennywise, that took Bill's kid brother Georgie. Sure that Pennywise means to take and devour them all, Bill and his friends must decide what to do in order to survive and possibly find any of the other children whom Pennywise has already taken.

The movie is a very solid horror movie that I put in the same box as recent horror hits like The Conjuring - it's not really doing anything new, but it uses tried-and-true horror movie techniques extremely well. You get the creepy piano music, a scary clown, creaky doors, dark basements, a spooky and dilapidated house, and almost every other trope you can imagine from such films from the past. Fortunately, director Andy Muschietti executes everything effectively, and he does implement some creative visual scares with sharp editing and a few truly startling moments. On the whole, though, I wasn't dazzled by any wealth of novelty here.

Although this movie is based on a much earlier novel, which had previously been adapted for TV in 1990, it's almost impossible to ignore its similarities with recent nostalgia-laden smash hit TV show Stranger Things, which itself is a bit of a love letter to fiction creators like Stephen King. If the 1980s setting, small town, and gang of 12- and 13-year old misfits isn't enough to make the comparison clear, It even features Finn Wolfhard, one of the young stars of Stranger Things. It doesn't do quite as good a job as the Netflix TV show of invoking the sense of fun and camaraderie, but the bond between the young kids - who dub themselves "The Losers' Club" - is effective enough.

Dank, shadowy sewers are only one of many well-known horror
tropes here. We also get eerie old houses, creaky doors, and
more, to go right along with the scary clown at the center.

The movie isn't one for subtlety, beyond even the standard horror elements already covered. The secondary characters leave no scrap of doubt as to their roles. The bullies are sneering, cackling, jackal-like predators whose every actions are despicable. The single, sleazy father of female Loser's Club member Emily simply oozes lecherousness. The shut-in mom of hypochondriac Eddie seems to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And on it goes, with anyone who is not a Loser's Club member being no more than two-dimensional, and basically of no help to the kids. This is an overly convenient narrative device, as it is about the only way that the kids are left to fend for themselves. It's not a fatal flaw, as the movie does need to keep its focus on the kids themselves, but I would have appreciated seeing one or two adults who actually seemed to care about their kids suffering through hellacious trauma.

Though It didn't stun me with anything exceptionally novel, it was a decent enough horror flick. It was always meant as the first of a two-part film series, with the sequel It: Chapter 2 set for a September 2019 release. I doubt that I'll bother seeing it in theaters, but I'll check it out eventually. The concept of a horror movie flashing forward 27 years to see the adult versions of the first movie's children protagonists deal with the returning horror is an interesting concept. 

Wonder Woman (2017) [Spoiler-Free]

Director: Patty Jenkins

It's not exactly the greatest movie you'll ever see, but Wonder Woman proves that the people behind DC's extended film universe might actually know how to allow a decent movie to be made.

Wonder Woman is the fourth in DC and Warner Brothers's "Extended Universe" (DCEU) of movies featuring characters from popular comic books. Anyone who has happened to read my reviews of the first three films - Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and Suicide Squad - knows that I found all three of those films either mediocre or just plain bad. Arguably the worst of the three, Batman v. Superman, had very few saving graces, one of them being the introduction of Gal Gadot (pronounced "gah-dote," by the way) as Diana Prince, or Wonder Woman. Her screen time in that film was relatively limited, but memorable, and it seemed to present Gadot as a good casting choice for the Amazonian heroine.

The feature film gives us Diana's full back story, starting with her life as a young girl on the paradisical island Themyscira, a place populated by the warrior women Amazons. The Amazons all seem to have supernaturally long life and physical strength, owing to their heritage as descendents of the ancient Greek gods. They remain isolated and cloaked from the rest of the world, however, as they are meant to serve as a line of last defense against an ancient foe of humankind. By unfortunate coincidence, the outside world eventually encroaches on Themyscira, during the final days of World War I. Upon learning of the horrible war happening outside of her safe cocoon, Diana leaves her home in order to track down the ancient Greek god whom she believes is responsible for the massive carnage of "The War to End All Wars."

The movie does a nice job of weaving a classic origin story within a larger framework of commentary about mankind's predilections for violence. The presentation of "Paradise Island" is just as visually stunning as you would hope of a big-budget, summer blockbuster, and the unfolding of Diana's backstory is handled well enough, even if there is nothing especially novel about it. The warrior women of the Amazon are presented as a considerable force, without being too heavy handed, or particularly creative, about showing it. As it should be, the fact that they are women is mostly coincidental, and more emphasis is placed on their abilities and unique place in the larger world. Diana's transition into a grimy, real world in the grips of a brutal war is conveyed well, with the contrast in color tones and costumes accentuating her shift from her idyllic, vibrant, and isolated home island into the chaotic and stark real world. However, the movie avoids a glaring flaw of its predecessors...

A major problem with the previous DCEU movies has been an overly dark tone that overwhelms nearly everything else about the pictures. Especially in Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman, the grim seriousness sucked nearly every last ounce of fun out of the movies. Wonder Woman deftly avoids this issue. While it does include the deeper themes of war, violence, and human compassion, the movie never loses sight of the fact that it is a superhero fantasy, and that fantasies are meant to be more than a little fun. Striking the balance between having a serious message and providing some entertainment isn't easy, but director Patty Jenkins pulls it off admirably.

Diana looks on in horror and rising fury at the carnage of
the first World War. Gadot brings highly credible emotion to
the picture, making her arguably the one element of the
movie that is truly standout.

Then there's Gal Gadot. It is difficult to imagine a better person to have played the single most famous female superhero in comic book history than Gadot. Obviously, she's gorgeous. Let's just agree that stunning looks don't hurt. But even more than that, she strikes just the correct tones that the story requires. Diana Prince is meant to be innately tough, capable, and trained as a warrior. Gadot conveys all of these characteristics and skills very convincingly (it came as little surprise for my wife and I to learn that she was a combat instructor in the Israeli army for two years). Just as important is how she portrays Diana as an idealistic, compassionate defender of the weak. This could easily have devolved into sentimentality or sappiness in the movie, but it never does. Instead, it all feels about as organic as a superhero fantasy can feel. This leads to more than a few moving sequences wherein the action on screen bears some legitimate emotional heft, even if the action itself hardly every rises above being passably entertaining.

I've alluded to a few less-than-oustanding elements of the film, but I can't say that I found anything to be a serious flaw. No, the dialogue isn't as crisp or clever as it probably could have been, but it's fine, even offering some solid chuckles along the way. The action isn't as engaging or kinetic as what we've seen in Marvel's last two Captain America movies, but it's mildly captivating at points. The overall story does, while offering some thoughtful themes, essentially become a fairly standard mano-a-mano punchout between Wonder Woman and the main adversary. All of these aspects fell short of being excellent, but they also never sunk to the sometimes-laughable shortcomings of the first three DCEU movies.

For popcorn movies like this, I gauge my enjoyment of them by asking myself whether I will ever watch it again. For Wonder Woman, my answer is that I probably will, but most likely not in the theater. While I did really enjoy seeing it for the first time, I don't see it as being a movie that offers the same entertainment returns upon repeat viewings. Whatever the case, it's great to see an action/adventure movie about a female character done right and strike a real chord with audiences. 

New(ish) Release: Suicide Squad (2016) and DCEU v MCU scorecard

Suicide Squad (2016)

Director: David Ayer

Three films into their mad dash to catch up to Marvel's Cinematic Universe, and DC and Warner Brothers are still stumbling along. Suicide Squad is another occasionally entertaining but ultimately uneven effort that doesn't stack up to far better superpeople flicks.

The tale is The Dirty Dozen with super villains. In the wake of events covered in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a shadowy government agency puts together a crew of super-powered but viciously dangerous and unstable criminals to act as a response team to potential large-scale, supernatural threats. The team includes expert marksman and assassin Deadshot (Will Smith), incredibly strong but ultra-violent reptilian Killer Croc, expert fighter and acrobat but unhinged madwoman Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and several other oddball lunatics and killers. Their services are extorted from them through various promises and leverage enacted by government hardass Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), and they are sent into a city under siege from an unknown, catastrophe-level force of destruction. Hopping around in the chaos is The Joker, Quinn's lover and object of mutual obsession, who is hell-bent on freeing his lady love from bondage.

The movie is mostly a mess that relies on talented, big-name actors, flashy visuals, and a soundtrack featuring well-established hard rock classics. Even I'll admit that there are a few moments when these elements blend in just the rights ways to result in entertaining scenes and sequences. Top-flight actors like Smith, Davis, and Robbie are sometimes able to take a very tepid script and make it work in spots, but most of the dialogue fails to stand out in any way.

The greater issue is the story itself. Firstly, there are simply far too many previously-unknown characters introduced to allow the film to build any real interest in any one of them in particular. The movie tries, especially in the cases of Deadshot and Quinn, but the attempts to make them compelling feel rather clumsy and cliche. When you add in attempts to offer half-baked emotional backstories for third-tier villains like Diablo, Katana, Rick Flag, and others, then they all just water each other down so that none become particularly interesting. This greatens the shame of having so many good actors play the roles, as they do their best with what they're given. They just weren't given enough, including screen time. It's as if the filmmakers assumed that everyone coming to see the movie was already familiar with the characters. This means that a Batman comic fan is likely to appreciate this movie far more than an average movie fan looking to get some new, engaging super-characters to entertain them.

Seven of the eight members of the "Squad." Only about three
of them are allowed any real time to become interesting. The
others just take up space and muddle up the proceedings.

Then there's the larger story. Nevermind that it just rehashes one of the all-time great war movies. I'm willing to look past that, since the added element of super-powered whack-jobs does introduce enough spice to liven up an unoriginal concept. No, the major crime is that the tale itself is incredibly sloppy. Through multiple flashbacks and a convoluted narrative, we learn that the team has been assembled to stop the menace of...a member of their team. And the only reason that this member becomes a threat is because she was sent out by Amanda Waller, who created the team. Now that is just stupid. And the arch villain here - the ultra-powerful mystic figure The Enchantress - has a motivation that is as generic as it gets: she wants to take over the world with her dark, mystic power. Just what she wants to do with the world when she controls it is never made clear in any way. Even now, after several days to digest and consider the movie, I don't know that I could give an accurate synopsis of all of the relevant plot points. It's one thing if a movie has a complexity of layers that can be analyzed and uncovered over time. It's another when someone can't even tell you exactly how certain actions led to others.

Then there's the Joker - as iconic a villain as has ever come from the world of comic books, or even American popular culture, for that matter. More than a few writers have shown that the Joker can be made an immensely strong, magnetic, and even disturbing character. Yet somehow, the rendition of him in Suicide Squad is just as messy as the rest of the movie. Extremely talented actor Jared Leto seemed to be drawing a bit from Heath Ledger's legendary performance in The Dark Knight, while attempting to add his own touches to it through an annoying, hushed voice. Combine this with an overall shallow character design (the Joker seems to live only to look flashy, act crazy, and love Harley Quinn), and he was surprisingly boring.

So the movie unfortunately fails in a great number of ways. I do think that it is better than Batman v Superman, which had far greater and far more unforgivable weaknesses. At least Suicide Squad tried something a bit different, and it does contain a few amusing sequences and decent one-liners. It gets a major nod over the previous, humorless DCEU entry just for bringing some fun back into the proceedings. Still, I can't imagine that I'll be watching this one again.


DC Extended Universe vs Marvel Cinematic Universe - the first 3 films

Now that the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) is officially three films into its franchise, I find myself considering just how it stacks up to where the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) was back when it was still in its earliest stages.

Movie #1: Man of Steel (2013) vs. Iron Man (2008)

In terms of pure dollars, Man of Steel actually outperformed Iron Man by about $100 million. But both were massive commercial successes. Money aside, though, Iron Man is a clearly superior movie. It's easy to forget now, with the MCU a full-fledged herd of cash cows, that Iron Man was far from a sure thing back when it came out. But Jon Favreau and the creative team brought us a wonderfully entertaining movie that still holds up. The only gripe I have about it is that the final battle is a bit dull, but everything else about it is great.

Man of Steel had the benefit of coming out after the MCU had well and truly turned the superhero movie genre into the insanely profitable entertainment form it is now. Even ignoring that significant advantage, it is a far weaker film than Iron Man. Marvel's flagship film knew how to have fun with its comic book character, while imbuing him with enough character and drama to make it engaging. Man of Steel made an attempt to imbue DC's flagship character with a somber seriousness that robbed him of any fun. For me, this was a critical flaw that is still rearing its head.

Winner: Iron Man, in very convincing fashion.

Movie #2: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) vs. The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The Incredible Hulk has been, for much of the MCU's life, the red-headed step child of the Universe. Until the recent Civil War, there was virtually no acknowledgement of the events or supporting characters depicted in the film. It's not terribly hard to see why. In my opinion, this is still the weakest MCU film to date. While it's not bad, it suffers from a few too many tepid scenes. There's a lack of particularly funny dialogue, and the final battle is a merely average slugfest between large monsters. Even in terms of cinematic world-building, it's clear that the MCU was still an iffy prospect, at best, when The Incredible Hulk was made. It was a possibility, but only a slight one, as evidenced by a near-complete lack of anything connected to other MCU films, whether Iron Man or later movies. The only hint is a brief mid-credit scene with Tony Stark, but this was far from a firm promise at the time. All of this might lead to you think that the DCEU could easily outdo the MCU's second film. And yet...

Batman v Superman was a shiny, flashy mess. I've done two different posts on it, once when it first came out and another when I recently looked at a few recent DC movies. Perhaps the only way it compares favorably to the mediocre Incredible Hulk is that it serves as a clearer connector between other DCEU films. Even there, though, the movie was extremely ham-fisted with how it crammed those connections down our throats. This is actually something that one could accuse the MCU's next movie of doing, though Batman v Superman was brutally less deft at it.

Winner: Incredible Hulk, in a close one. It might be a bit dull, but to me that's better than being annoyingly and inexcusably sloppy and pretentious, which is what Batman v Superman is.

Movie #3: Suicide Squad (2016) vs. Iron Man 2 (2010)

A curious matchup, as they are such different movies, especially in the grander scheme of their film universes.

Iron Man 2 was the movie that first really and truly put the "Universe" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was the first film that was made with its creators having a vision for a much larger, shared movie universe which would soon include Thor, Captain America, and culminate in The Avengers. With this grand plan in mind, Iron Man 2 was forced to include certain elements which weren't necessarily key to the overall plot with Tony Stark at its center. The introduction of eventual key players like Black Widow and Phil Coulson can feel a bit forced, but not terribly so. Aside from this, the movie is merely so-so, with two of the weaker/incoherent villians in MCU history, but also including some solid action sequences and humor.

When compared to Suicide Squad, Iron Man 2 edges it out. The weaknesses of Suicide Squad are more numerous and egregious, while those in Iron Man 2 don't offend nearly as much.

Winner: Iron Man 2

So DC still has a lot of ground to make up, in my view. However, the movie studios are unlikely to see it that way. When one looks at the box office returns for the first three films in each franchise, the DCEU actually blows away the MCU. However, this is not exactly a fair comparison, given the fact that it was the MCU that truly stoked the public's appetite for blockbuster superhero flicks into a raging inferno that the DCEU is using to keep itself very warm.

The only hope I have that the DCEU will actually make a few decent movies is that they have different writers and directors for their various films (expcept for the Justice League movies, which Zack Snyder will head up). My hope is that one or more of the new directors is able to create better movies for the mythic characters from DC lore that so many of us know and love. At this point, though, I'll take even the worst MCU movie over the best DCEU one. 

DC's Modern Blockbusters

I didn't even bother to see Suicide Squad in the theater, so disappointed have I been with the major DC movie adaptations in the last decade (excepting of course Nolan's excellent Dark Knight trilogy). All the same, with the movie having just come out for rental, I decided to do a little run-through of the most commercially successful films outside of Nolan's Batman movies:

Superman Returns (2006)

Director: Bryan Singer

This movie isn't "bad" per se. It's just a bit dull. It comes off now, ten years later, like a weaker prototype of what J.J. Abrams did in 2015's Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

I saw this movie upon its release in 2006, and I seem to recall a second viewing at home maybe a year later. I'd never felt the desire to see it again, and this third viewing confirmed why. While it avoids any major pitfalls and does a decent enough job, there is simply nothing which sets it apart as an especially remarkable superhero movie.

The story draws from the more successful Superman movies of the past, most specifically the 1978 original directed by Richard Donner and starring Christopher Reeve. The 2006 movie sets up Lex Luthor as the arch villain again, and his grand scheme involves killing billions of people in order to set himself up as the sole owner of a new, virgin continent of his own creation. While there are a few added elements to Returns, this is basically the same template which the 1978 movie used. One addition is how the fuel for Luthor's mass homicidal scheme are crystals which he finds in Superman's Fortress of Solitude. The problem is that this plot point raises a ton of questions which go unanswered in the movie, along with Luthor's notion that he'll be able to manufacture futuristic weapons using Kryptonian technology learned from the crystals. Yet, once he hatches his plan, he hasn't built a single weapon. How exactly does he plan to defend his newly-growing continent? With his three henchmen and a few machine guns? Pretty shoddy planning for a "criminal genius." There are several plot points such as this, where the basic idea was decent, but the details in the execution were sorely lacking.

A major issue for many Superman movies is the simple fact that the character is simply not terribly interesting outside of his dazzling and immense powers. Superman/Clark Kent is not a tortured soul. He is not a brilliant tactician or a very cerebral character. He has always been a fairly humorless boyscout. This means that his entertainment value typically comes from one of three sources - displays of his powers, intriguing villains, and humor. For the former, Returns actually does a decent enough job. The obligatory montage of Superman saving various people is fun, especially his facing down of a maniac with a hyper-charged Gatling gun. Other sequences with the Man of Steel swooping around and using his heat vision, superbreath, and other abilities are mildly engaging, but nothing stands out as particularly clever. The second source of possible fun, the villains and the havoc they wreak, is lacking in Returns. Yes, Luthor is pure evil. We've always known that, just as we've always known that Superman has as firm a moral compass as they come. The one clever turn is how Luthor embeds Kryptonite into his new continent to out-maneuver his nemesis, but beyond that, there's nothing much. If Marvel's Captain America movies have shown us anything, they've shown us that even a flawlessly righteous character, such as Steve Rogers, can be given moral dilemmas to grapple with. And such characters can be put into situations which require lateral thinking and/or stunning uses of their abilities. Returns never quite gives us enough to top what we'd seen before.

These three thugs constitute the entire defense force of the
newly established continent of Luthor's making. Just how long
did he think he was going to be able to hang onto this fruit
of his intellectual labor? 

If the movie had redirected its effort, it could have added some depth or shown some imagination with its story. Instead, we get what I found to be a boring subplot about how Lois Lane has born Superman's child - an asthmatic five year-old who walks around dazed most of the time. The story wants us to feel some sort of romantic tension between Clark, Lois, and Lois's husband Richard, but it never really materializes. In fact, it leads to a few moments which make Superman look like a creepy stalker, such as when he's hovering outside of Lois's home, using his X-ray vision to spy on her and her family. I'm pretty sure Ma and Pa Kent imparted some sense of courtesy upon their adopted son, but you might not know it from Returns. And this is typical of the movie - none of the characters or situations ever feels genuine or compelling enough to make the film stand out.

The scope is certainly what you want from a Superman movie, with an entire continent forming just off the east coast of the U.S. and causing massive destruction in nearby Metropolis. This gives the Man of Steel plenty to contend with, especially when he's suffering from Kryptonite poisoning. Watching him hoist the entire growing island is fairly awesome, but yet again there is a problem with the details. There is Kryptonite literally growing around him, within a mere few feet of him, and yet he still has his powers. Nonsense, according to the rules laid out long ago in the world of DC, and as is known to virtually any red-blooded American.

And where, exactly, is the fun? To this day, the very best Superman movies - Superman  and Superman II - had great comic moments that still stand up extremely well, to this very day. It's that third source of entertainment that makes an otherwise two-dimensional character fun to watch. Those early Reeve movies had great visual gags and a ton of solid deadpan humor. When you add Gene Hackman and Terence Stamp to the proceedings, you have movie gold. Returns never comes remotely close to being as funny as those early movies. It does try, but the writing just isn't sharp enough, comedically. Kevin Spacey is a fantastic actor, but his Luthor is too joyless and cold to ever be very entertaining.

While I wouldn't have been bothered if Bryan Singer had been given a shot at a sequel, to see if he could improve on some foundations laid in Superman Returns, I'm not surprised that his reboot only lasted the one film. It was ultimately a tepid movie that didn't really inspire much interest in seeing more of those iterations of known characters. And so the Superman movie franchise took a nap for several years. Until...

Man of Steel (2013)

Director: Zack Snyder

I have a hard time deciding if Man of Steel is any better or worse than Superman Returns, since they are such different reboots of the character. I am, however, confident in stating that it's still not on par with the 1978 or 1980 films. And it's not even close.

This was only the second time I've seen Man of Steel, the first being when it was initially released in theaters. I didn't much like it back then, and my impression of it had deteriorated since. Upon this second viewing, though, I can see that I was being a bit overly harsh. I still don't think it's a terribly good movie, but it's not as horrible as the jokes about it suggest. Not as horrible.

The plot is complex enough to make a simple summary tough, but I'll take a shot. We see the days or weeks before Krypton explodes, when Kal-El's father, Jor-El, places him into a space pod to send him away from their dying planet. The scientist Jor-El must fend off an oncoming coup staged by the fanatical General Zod. Kal-El is sent off in time to escape the dying Krypton, not long before Zod is foiled and sent to an interstellar prison, shortly before Krypton explodes. Years later on Earth, Kal-El's pod crashes in Kansas, where he is found and raised by the Kents, a pair of loving farmers who name their newfound son Clark. Clark's father, upon learning of his son's incredible abilities, tries to impart upon him that he must keep his abilities hidden from others for a while, even if this means allowing people at risk to be harmed or even die. When Clark becomes an adult, he seeks out and finds a Kryptonian scout ship buried in the Arctic, where he begins to learn about his true origins. Unfortunately, he also accidentally sends out a beacon which is picked up galaxies away by an escaped General Zod. Zod and his few surviving followers race towards Earth, which they hope to terraform and mold into a new Krypton. This plan would completely wipe out the human population, something which doesn't sit well with its adopted son, Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman.

The actual foundation of the plot isn't bad. While writer David S. Goyer (with co-story credit going to Christopher Nolan) does dip into the familiar well of the character of General Zod, he doesn't just retell the story of Superman II. And the added detail of having the entire genetic codes of all Kryptonians embedded in Kal-El's cells is fairly imaginative. They even put together a plausible reason for Zod to show up just as Kal-El embraces his identity as a hero for Earth. Even the notion of the massive "World Engine" and Superman's struggle to take it down is on a scale appropriate for a Superman story.

But yet again, the problems arise in many of the details. Even early on, when Jor-El is desperately trying to convince Krypton's leaders to send out to other planets in order to save some part of their race, it's not at all clear why and how they would be so idiotic as to ignore him. And when his wife, Lara, asks why they can't accompany their son on his life-saving trip to Earth, the response is a baffling, "It's too late for us." It is? Why the hell is that, Mister Brilliant Scientist??!! If you can send one body to another planet, why not one or two more? Such oversights make up several cracks in what otherwise purports to be a very smart plot.

Superman snapping Zod's neck is the ash icing on the grim
cake that is Man of Steel. Couldn't we have gotten
just a little bit of fun from this movie?

A major issue I have is one I know is shared by others critical of the movie, and this is the utter lack of humor. Trying for the grimmer tone which Nolan successfully tapped in his Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel takes itself deadly seriously. The Nolan Batman movies did work in some decent levity, but Man of Steel's Clark Kent is a tortured soul who cracks nary a smile throughout the entire movie. This is thanks to a slightly reworked backstory and a plot that allows for no humor whatsoever. I've generally felt that the best Superman tales and movies have a more upbeat tone and some great comedy, two things which the 1978 and 1980 movies accomplished brilliantly. Thanks to solid scripts and excellent deadpan acting by the likes of Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, and Terence Stamp, those early movies feature comedy that holds up right to this very day. Man of Steel takes a scant few stabs at humor, but they lack any memorable punch. The film just feels like it's taking itself far too seriously nearly the entire time. This isn't helped by a third act which sees thousands upon thousands of people die, and then Superman kill General Zod by breaking his neck. I'm of the opinion that such dark themes and actions should be left to other superheroes. Let Superman be that one good guy who can still get the job done without him committing homicide or having to watch masses of people annihilated. If I want that, I'll go back and read my collection of Alan Moore's Miracleman comics.

In that vein is what I consider the movie's greatest offense - Clark's dad telling him to let other people die. It's an absolutely horrible and contrived plot point. I assume that the writers didn't want us viewers to see Jonathan Kent as a delusional or simply dense fool, but that's how he comes off. A young Clark saves a bus load of schoolmates who are about to drown, and his father basically scolds him for it? And then tells him that he maybe should have let them die because he "thinks" Clark has some higher purpose? Are you kidding me? And never mind the ridiculous death scene, where Jonathan waves off Clark as he is about to save him from an oncoming tornado. What, did you forget that your son can move so quickly that he could save you and everyone else so fast that no one would even see him? The second of the two whammies with this ridiculous plot element is that it makes Clark a miserable figure. And I don't need my Superman moping around trying to figure out whether he should be helping people or not. I need him helping people without question, and then getting pressed by major threats like evil geniuses or megalomaniacs from space. Not daddy issues.

This is about as light-hearted as things get. Henry Cavill's
impossibly handsome face spends way too much time in this
troubled glare.

The story and characters are the sources of the movie's major issues, to be sure. The other film elements are actually decent, and sometimes even quite good. As with all Snyder movies, everything looks super slick. I do feel that CGI was overused, mostly during the opening scenes on Krypton, but otherwise it was blended exceptionally well with the live action. There are also several solid fight sequences between Superman, Zod and his acolytes, though it sometimes moves too quickly to have as much impact as it might otherwise have.

This does, however, bring up another issue with Zack Snyder, which is his clear emphasis on style and aesthetic over a tight story and genuine characters. All of his films feature scenes, costumes, and actors that really catch the eye. And sometimes they even hold your attention for a while. But once you get past the glamorous veneer, there is far too often not enough substance beneath it. Snyder is obviously a major fan of comic books, especially classic DC stories, and his movies attempt to be very faithful to the comic book tradition of memorable splash pages and iconic but static poses. These are things that make for great comics. The problem is that film is a different medium - one which can and should tell stories that are visually dynamic in ways that comic cannot be. Snyder seems to have some sense of this at times, but it is not consistent.

I'll give Man of Steel some credit for trying to do something a bit different with such an old and classic character. Some aspects of it show some decent creativity, but ultimately the weaknesses are too much to make it a good movie in my eyes. While it may be different and more daring than Superman Returns, I can't say that it's a better overall movie. All the same, the folks at DC and Warner Brothers decided that they were tired of watching Marvel raking in billions of dollars, so they whipped up their own comic book movie world, leading to...

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2015)

Director: Zack Snyder

Note: on this second viewing, I watch the "Ultimate Edition" blu ray, which adds about 20 minutes of footage not included in the theatrical release. That's nearly three hours, folks. 

I originally reviewed this movie upon its theatrical release in this post.

I've never gotten political on this blog, ever. But upon my re-watch of this movie, considering just how much money it made, I can't help but see a parallel with our recent presidential election. There are so many ways that I see the frequent and inescapable problems with Batman v Superman that I was clueless enough to think it would bomb. But it didn't. It became one of the top 50 highest grossing films of all time. Just like I was stunned at the election outcome. There's clearly something that many other people are seeing and enjoying in this movie that allows them to overlook glaring flaws that many others and I can't help but notice.

I won't rehash the plot or most of my original issues with the movie. I will state that the Ultimate Edition does add a few worthy sequences which smooth out a few of the plot points, mostly in relation to the manufactured animosity between Superman and Batman. This is really the only aspect of the plot which is helped by the extra footage. None of the many other shallow, weak, tangential, or illogical plot points are improved or mended in this "definitive" version of the film.

During this second viewing, I almost started taking notes in order to keep up with the plot problems and general issues with the film. They come that frequently. If a viewer looks just the slightest bit past the surface of the movie's plot, they will find questions that are at best mild oversights or unimaginative scripting, and at worst extremely sloppy storytelling. One could probably write a breakdown of the issues that would amount to a comprehensive manual on how not to write a tight, well-crafted story. I'll keep it short by picking out a couple of examples, while resisting the obvious "Martha" moment. One is towards the beginning of the movie, when Lois Lane is in the middle of the African desert, interviewing a murderous rebel leader. Things go horribly wrong rather quickly, with Lane's photographer getting executed and half of the people in the camp getting murdered. When Lois Lane is eventually threatened directly, down swoops Superman to save her in dramatic fashion. And just where the hell was he when other people were getting slaughtered here, especially Jimmy Olsen? The only way that Superman could have saved Lois at just that moment is if he's keeping a nearly round-the-clock eye on her; if that's the case, then why didn't he save some of the other people in the camp? And how creepy is it that he's always watching her in the first place? But wait, how can he be constantly watching her and saving other people and living his "Clark Kent" life at the same time? And these very same questions come up much later in the movie as well.

Clark's obsessive devotion to Lois Lane becomes a serious
problem for the entire plot, if one looks  just a little beyond
the surface of the patchwork storyline.

One more of the many examples is towards the end of the movie, when Luthor kidnaps Clark's mother and holds her hostage in order to force Clark to kill Batman. Up to this point, Luthor has worked for nearly two years to forge a false image of Batman as a psychotic and virtually murderous menace - an image which he wants Clark to see and believe will justify his killing Batman. However, when the moment is nigh, Luthor just uses Clark's mother as leverage to force him to hunt down Batman anyway. Well why the hell didn't Luthor just do that in the first place? That final move negated everything else he had been carefully constructing up to that point. These are just two examples of problems that pop up all throughout this movie. It smacks of a script in which the writers first came up with the images, dramatic moments, or just rough concepts they wanted first, and then built a plot around those individual images and moments, no matter if the connections are tenuous much of the time.

The other standout issue for me is the dialogue itself. In short, it's pretty bad. Many of the issues arise from writers Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer's attempts to tap into the tone of Christopher Nolan's epigram- and adage-laden Dark Knight movies. In Batman v Superman, the characters are often spouting off seemingly-profound observations about men, gods, monsters, parents, and society. But like Man of Steel, many of the sentiments ring shallow or simply suck any semblance of joy out of many of the scenes. Other moments of potential humor or wit are simply lame. When Bruce Wayne is discovered skulking into a room full of Lex Luthor's computer mainframes (oddly stationed out in the open, right next to the kitchen), his response is "I thought the bathroom was down here." This is the "World's Greatest Detective"? A man who is supposedly known for his unparalleled cunning, and the best excuse he can come up with is something you might hear from a 12-year-old boy who burst into the bedroom of his friend's older sister, hoping to catch a glimpse of some skin? Hardly the stuff of great writing.

One of the many iconic poses in the movie. As he did in Man
of Steel director Zack Snyder put more emphasis on stylish
images as he does on telling a creative and coherent tale.

And on and on it goes. It really is a shame, since the movie had a tremendous budget and a few half-decent ideas to work with. But while the visuals are fairly stunning, making the movie enjoyable to look at, any discriminating viewer is likely to have issues with the real meat of the tale, such as it is. I really have little hope that this will change with any of the future DCEU films which Snyder will be directing in the next few years. The massive amounts of cash that the movie raked in are mandate enough for him to keep doing what he's doing, so I expect the Justice League movies to be more of the same.

Still, I keep going back. Enough of a comic book fan am I that I will be taking a look at Suicide Squad very soon. I couldn't get past the mediocre reviews enough to bother seeing it in the theater, but I'll see if director/writer David Ayer offered any remedy to the stale offerings that Snyder has thus far provided.