RSS

Movie Review: “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”

This movie is not as bad as you may have heard. It is much, much worse. This is the kind of movie that a fourteen-year-old, who thinks they’re “edgy” after just discovering Nine Inch Nails and Richard Dawkins, would make in stop-motion with their old action figures.

“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” was supposed to be the movie that launched D.C. Comics’ own competitor to Marvel’s Avengers juggernaut. And while I’ve had a few critical things to say about the Marvel formula over the years, nothing – nothing – in the Marvel lineup comes close to the travesty that is this film. As it were, the person who should be happiest about “BvS” is Joel Schumacher, director of the much-derided “Batman and Robin.” Now, he no longer holds claim to the “worst Batman director” title (assuming, however, that the abomination Snyder has put onscreen can even be termed a “Batman movie”).

Snyder’s characters are cardboard cutouts – I’d be surprised if either Batman or Superman had more than ten lines apiece. Despite my best efforts, I cannot think of a single adjective to describe Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne other than “well, he’s Batman.” At least Lois Lane (Amy Adams) displays some glimmers of a personality, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) seems to be having a good time. Superman (Henry Cavill) broods a lot and storms around but doesn’t talk much.

I haven’t yet said anything about the plot. That’s because there isn’t much of one. Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) goads Superman and Batman into a fight because Batman feels insecure about Superman’s lack of accountability…though Batman also isn’t accountable to anyone…and that bothers Superman…never mind, it’s not worth trying to parse. Eventually, Batman and Superman fight, and Lex sends out a giant monster (Doomsday) to kill everything in sight, and plenty of things go boom.

The film consistently evinces middle-school editing skills. For the movie’s first 90 minutes, almost every scene lasts for less than a minute before cutting away to some entirely different location. No one stops to pause, to reflect, to engage in introspection, or to explain what’s going on; it’s filmmaking for the hyperactive post-millennial generation.

Much worse: Batman and Superman are hollowed-out shells stripped of principle, motivation, and identity. Not once do they articulate a positive conception of their roles in society. They brood, and express angst, and trade punches, but display absolutely zero sense of a broader ethical responsibility to those around them. This problem is so pervasive that I hesitate to even say that “Superman fights Batman” in this movie, since the armored thing onscreen is so utterly antithetical to the ethos of the Batman character. In this film, Batman tortures, brands, burns, knifes, and shoots his opponents and comes within microseconds of murdering Superman in cold blood. This is no superhero; this is a monster who has embraced every facet of evil teased out in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy. And yet Snyder seems to think we should be okay with this. Similarly, Superman displays a glib unconcern for the lives of others around him, saving lives and ignoring lives whenever he feels so inclined. It’s quite possible Snyder is making a point about the perceived capriciousness of God (a point tossed out by Lex), but then, incoherently, Snyder proceeds to engage in shameless, artistically bankrupt appropriation of traditional Christian imagery. One particularly infuriating example: a seriously wounded Superman, bleeding from a spear wound in his side, is carried down from a war-blasted hill and cradled in Wonder Woman’s arms, with three cross-beams silhouetted in the background. Here, Snyder is leaning very, very hard on the messianic Superman imagery (way more so than in “Man of Steel”) but with even less substance to back it up. The end result feels cheap, incoherent, cynically manipulative (especially given that the film released over Easter weekend) and more cloying than even the worst Joel Osteen sermon.

As I’ve written elsewhere, I really don’t like it when critics throw stones without suggesting potential fixes. Accordingly (bear with me) here’s my treatment of how “BvS” should’ve looked:

As the film opens, Batman apprehends a vicious and persistently homicidal villain (it could be Lex Luthor, the Joker, or anyone else). After a savage battle, Batman subdues the villain but does not kill him, out of a sense of principle; instead, the villain is incarcerated in Arkham Asylum. Naturally, the villain escapes (with help from corrupt law enforcement) and ends up killing Lois Lane before Superman can intervene. In the midst of intense personal anguish, Superman sees this as Batman’s ideological failure, arising from an unwillingness to embrace the totality of his “beyond-ness” vis-a-vis the law (in “Man of Steel” Superman killed Zod in order to prevent innocent people from being slain). Batman, conversely, sees his “thou shalt not kill” principle as inviolable…even if, through other intervening actors, downstream harm results. This, then is the conflict that sets up the savage battle between Batman and Superman. There is no late-game villain that forces them to put their quarrel aside and cooperate: instead, the final battle plays out like the last scenes of “Blade Runner” – slow and portentous conflict, mixed with philosophy, in the rain. Such a plot arc not only sets up a far deeper philosophical clash than “order versus chaos” (this is a consequentialism vs. deontological ethics) but implicates contemporary debates about the morality of capital punishment and accountability in the criminal justice system. It also breaks the unwritten “rule” of modern superhero movies that no main characters will ever die. It’s consistent with Batman’s character, consistent with the ending of “Man of Steel,” and sets up an ongoing flashpoint between two central characters. And as a bonus, it pays cinematic homage to one of the best examples of “dark” sci-fi entertainment.

But this would probably bore Snyder to tears. There aren’t enough explosions! (And, to be fair, sometimes these are fun; the final scene in which Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman team up against a giant enemy is just Avengers-y enough to warrant a couple stars. But the rest of the film is garbage.)

In the wake of “BvS,” it makes no sense to speak of a “Dawn of Justice” or even of a “Justice League” to come. Here, there is no concept of justice, virtue, ethics, morality, or logic to speak of. What “justice” can Snyder’s heroes be expected to enforce, when they stand for nothing at all other than raw strength? Plato’s Thrasymachus and Nietzsche’s madman would approve wholeheartedly: here, the only thing that matters is who can beat the stuffing out of the other guy. All is reducible to the will to power.

In short, “Batman v Superman” is stupid, nihilistic trash that betrays its iconic characters. It is an insult to the intellect, to the soul, and to good moviemaking.

VERDICT: 2/10
One of the worst superhero films I’ve ever seen. “Man of Steel” looks like “Casablanca” by comparison.

Normalized Score: 0.0

 
3 Comments

Posted by on March 25, 2016 in Sci-Fi

 

Movie Review: “Gods of Egypt”

I’ve admired director Alex Proyas’s previous films (“The Crow,” “Dark City,” “Knowing,” “I, Robot”) for years, and I happen to think his work (particularly “Knowing”) is seriously underrated by critics. “Gods of Egypt” forays into the realm of big-budget mainstream spectacle – and there’s definitely a reason it got a February release date. Simply put, this is an intensely frustrating film to review. Viewed in the aggregate: one-third of the movie is worst-of-the-year trash. Another third is head-scratchingly incomprehensible, suggestive of a deeper though convoluted underlying mythology. And a final third is visionary brilliance.

Heroic falcon god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, of “Game of Thrones” and “Headhunters”) is denied his rightful throne by the evil Set (Gerard Butler), who seizes control of Someplace-That-Looks-Nothing-Vaguely-Egyptian and gouges out Horus’s magical eyes. Horus soon crosses paths with human Bek (Brenton Thwaites), who’s desperate to recover his slain love from the underworld – a terrifying hellscape ruled by jackal god Anubis. The two join forces in a video-game-style series of quests that take them to multiple exotic locales: cue a procession of monsters, Indiana Jones-style traps, and inexplicable explosions.

If you thought “Gods of Egypt” looked pretty dumb from the trailers, you weren’t wrong. The cheese factor is extremely high, to the point that I found myself wondering early on if I’d stumbled on a high-dollar “Saturday Night Live” sketch. The movie’s singular saving grace is that it doesn’t take itself particularly seriously. None of the gloominess of “Immortals” or “Clash of the Titans” is present here – this is an eye-poppingly colorful experience in all senses of the term, inflected with just enough humor and sarcasm to keep the whole thing from imploding. Elodie Yung as love goddess Hathor (who unfortunately never transforms into her Sekhmet lioness form…I was disappointed) steals the show, poking fun at the masculine swords-and-sandals fantasy “Gods of Egypt” quickly becomes.

Much has already been written about the movie’s whitewashed casting (seriously, it’s impossible to take Gerard Butler seriously as an Egyptian desert god), but the real problem lies deeper: what’s onscreen is a story that doesn’t reflect the core ethos of the myths on which it’s ostensibly based. The strange (to modern sensibilities) aspects of Egyptian legend – mortal terror of the unknown, the totalizing cultural fixation on death rites, the desperate reverence for the holy Nile, the inhumanity of the divine – are cast aside in favor of a good-versus-evil narrative that hits all the expected PG-13 story beats. This systemic westernization of the mythology feels cheap and culturally bankrupt.

That’s not to say, however, that “Gods of Egypt” is altogether unwatchable. To the contrary, it’s filled with really excellent action setpieces and some genuinely mesmerizing imagery. One example particularly stands out: midway through the film, Horus and Bek meet the sun god Ra. Ra spearheads an endless chariot journey around the flat, disc-like world, the sun itself in tow. Every night, when the sun dips below the horizon, Ra picks up his spear and goes to battle agains the gargantuan chaos dragon Apophis, a fight eternally resulting in stalemate. The implication is haunting: Ra, the mightiest god of all, is condemned to serve as a lone sentinel at the edge of the universe. He cannot abandon his post or existence itself will end: such is the price of absolute power.

Additionally, while it’s inexpertly rendered onscreen, there’s a great deal of interesting philosophy just beneath the surface of “Gods” (much more than the banal humanism of “Clash of the Titans,” its closest analogue).

Proyas’s films bear a discernible common motif: in the same way that Darren Aronofsky’s movies depict their protagonists’ obsessive pursuit of the Ultimate, so Proyas’s work stresses the centrality of mediation between humanity and the transcendent/incomprehensible. Just as “I, Robot” centered on the one robot to manifest self-awareness (bridging the gap between man and singularity), “The Crow” starred a gothic antihero channeling the spirit of a spectral figure, and “Knowing” depicted mysterious angelic extraterrestrials carrying out some inscrutable plan, so too do the deities of “Gods of Egypt” stand interposed between the film’s human protagonist and the unfathomable cosmic forces at play. Though the shadowy entities prowling in the background of “Gods” are positively Lovecraftian in character, they wear humanoid masks.

That said, in a fascinating change from Proyas’s previous work, the film’s soteriology has drifted from supralapsarianism to full-bore Pelagianism. While in “Knowing,” the film’s children were spared from the apocalypse via an act of incomprehensible – even Calvinistic – sovereign grace, here Horus declares that the preconditions for immortality are a life filled with good works. The metaphysical scheme underlying “Gods” is strictly graceless: only through moral acts on earth can humanity rise above the threat posed by absolute chaotic nothingness. Albert Camus would approve.

Is “Gods of Egypt” worth your time and money? It depends: with another six months of retooling, “Gods of Egypt” could’ve been great. Viewers who aren’t Proyas geeks like me will likely find the movie garish and forgettable (shout-out to my long-suffering girlfriend who sat through this next to me), though action-junkies will appreciate its adrenaline-soaked, hyperkinetic pace.

VERDICT: 6.5/10
A case study in frustratingly wasted potential: all the pieces are here, but things don’t quite coalesce.

Normalized Score: 2.4

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 27, 2016 in Fantasy