BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: Yeah, no.

Now playing at a multiplex near you:

BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

(Dir. Zach Snyder, 2016)

DC pitting their two biggest, most iconic superheroes – Batman and Superman - against each other in order to jumpstart their cinematic universe looked like a questionable premise right off the bat – pun intended.

Especially since I, and many others, hated the first installment of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe), Zach Snyder’s SUPERMAN series reboot MAN OF STEEL.

So I went in to Snyder’s follow-up/BATMAN reboot with exceedingly low expectations, but was still majorly disappointed.

For BATMAN V. SUPERMAN is another round of boring bombast surrounding a couple of dark dullards without a lick of compelling storytelling to be found. There’s also a severe lack of humor, and anything resembling a fresh style.

Henry Cavill, returning as the red caped crusader as well as giving us our first real taste of his Clark Kent persona (we only got a glimpse of him getting the job at The Daily Planet in MAN OF STEEL at the end), and Ben Affleck, making his debut as the Dark Knight/Bruce Wayne, both brood up a storm but there’s nothing really that intriguing about their characters. They’re just overly self serious, bland dudes is all.

The film tries to simultaneously function as a sequel and a origin story for Affleck’s incarnation of Batman, but it strongly appears that his/Snyder’s version of the character is a continuation of the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale model as there are references to The Joker, an identical bat cave, and restagings of his parents’ murder and his being attacked by bats in a well as a child that attempt but fail to recreate the gravitas of Nolan’s work.

We learn that while Superman was battling General Zod and reaping mass destruction on Metropolis in MAN OF STEEL, Wayne was one of the many folks in the rubble building up a hated for Superman. Just like many in the audience.

Clark Kent, for his part, dislikes Batman, labeling him a “bat vigilante” and “a one man reign of terror” so the stage is set for what Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg) bills as “the greatest gladiator match in the history of the world.”

Eisenberg’s Luther is an unhinged, mad scientist who, of course, wants the two leads to fight and destroy each other so that he can…uh, I forget exactly what his plans were for after that but we’ll just go with world domination. Eisenberg locks in to the villain role with a lot of crazy conviction, but I never bought him as Luther. He reminded me of the Jon Cryer role in SUPERMAN IV – Luther’s (then played by the great Gene Hackman – now, there’s a Lex Luther!) newphew/flunky. He seems like the guy who’d be fetching stuff for Luther, not actually be Luther.

Whatever the case, this movie plays out exactly how you’d expect with no surprises. Batman and Superman fight, then bond together to fight a ginormous, grotesque creature that Luther created from Zod’s DNA, with the help of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), whose addition here feels like an afterthought.

David S. Goyer (MAN OF STEEL) and Chris Terrio’s (Oscar winner for the screenplay for Affleck’s ARGO) screenplay is full of pretentious dialogue about good, evil, “god versus man,” etc. but none of it comes together to form any meaningful theme. There are also a few incredibly weak plotpoints that would be a Spoiler to complain about, but I'll just say that in the worst one they make a connection between the feuding leads based on a coincidental name in their families. Man, that made me cringe.



So did the dream sequences - one a dream inside a dream deal - which were ultra unnecessary. 
Amy Adams, reprising Lois Lane, puts some genuine passion into her part, and her fellow returning cast members (Lawrence Fishburne as Editor Perry White, and Diane Lane and Kevin Costner (a dream-set cameo) as Superman’s earth parents) are all fine, but in the messy machinery of this movie they are little more than cardboard cogs.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Irons takes over from Michael Caine as Batman’s butler Alfred and has a few of the film’s only mildly amusing lines, and there’s a welcome turn by Holly Hunter as a senator who wants to hold Superman accountable for his actions in the previous film’s climax, but sadly a hearing scene in which Superman stands before congress is cut short before he gets to testify. Silly me for thinking that Superman could offer any plausible justification for the sins of MAN OF STEEL. Also Hunter’s role here may remind some folks that she was in a movie that dealt much better with the accountability of superheroes: THE INCREDIBLES.

Folks complained plenty when Affleck was cast, but he does an admirable job with the underwritten role. He mostly just has to grimace behind a mask while the special effects people rig things to explode around him and he can certainly pull that off. Affleck’s Bruce Wayne persona is basically just a collection of suave poses with flashes of his bedroom eyes and he hits the mark with that too. If only there was something more to flesh out there. I mean, Will Arnett’s Batman in THE LEGO MOVIE was more complex than this guy!

BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (stiff, clunky title) is the first big, bad movie of the year – an awful, mess of a wannabe epic that casts a dark shadow on the future of both superhero franchises as well as the entire DCEU. The two JUSTICE LEAGUE movies that are set for 2017 and 2019, the next we’ll see these characters, really have to be something special to redeem the whole enterprise, but Snyder is set to direct those too so I’m not counting on that to happen.

Oh, and don’t worry about staying to the end of the credits because there is no stinger – that’s something they surprisingly haven’t stolen from Marvel. 

More later...

The Upcoming Superhero Showdown

A few weeks back while attending a movie at a multiplex, I saw posters for the two big superhero movies that are coming soon side by side: Zach Snyder's BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (opening this week), and Anthony Russo and Joe Russo's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR (opening May 6). It was funny how much the posters looked alike: superheros facing off in profile; one masked, one not; similar color scheme with bluish gray sky in the backbround. 



The posters also pit DC against Marvel. DC is in the process of mounting their own Cinematic Universe to rival (and copy) Marvel's extremely successful business model with scores of movies in the pipeline, including two JUSTICE LEAGUE films, their equivalent of Marvel's AVENGERS movies. Between the two comic book companies' plans for world domination, we're not far off from a world in which a new superhero movie is released every weekend. But DC has a lot of catching up to do to get where Marvel is - CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR is the beginning of phase 3 of their Cinematic Universe - meaning that it'll be a decade before we get to whatever DC's equivalent of DEADPOOL is.



Now, I've enjoyed quite a few superhero movies. I think Marvel has a good thing going on for the most part and I've given good reviews to two out of the three IRON MAN movies (2 is the weak link), the previous CAPTAIN AMERICA entries, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, ANT-MAN, and the two AVENGERS films. The THOR movies I'm not a fan of, but overall there's a lot of fun to be had within the interlocking continuity of the multiple franchises.



But, yeah, there is a saturation point and according to filmmaker Alejandro G. Iñárritu, whose BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) was about a former star of a comic book film series, we've reached it: 



“They (superhero movies) have been poison, this cultural genocide, because the audience is so overexposed to plot and explosions and shit that doesn’t mean nothing about the experience of being human.”

The new Dark Knight, Ben Affleck, recently responded to Iñárritu's remarks: 

“Alejandro is also given to over-statement. I wouldn’t call it cultural genocide, but he’s brilliant and his point is taken that you can’t just swallow up cinema with any kind of movie.”

The buzz for BATMAN V. SUPERMAN has been very mixed - the film is currently at 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it'll no doubt be a huge hit. Both characters have huge fan bases, or fanboy bases, and this weekend there's little in the way of competition - doubt MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING 2 will steal much or any of its audience.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR is going to clean up too as I predict it'll be better received and it has a ginormous cast of superheros with almost every Marvel character making an appearance including the much hyped re-introduction of SPIDER-MAN. 

So it really doesn't matter if we've reached, or gone past, the point of over saturation, because unless there's a series of bigtime flops in the genre, we are most likely going to have superhero movies coming at us for the rest of our lives. That may be depressing news to those who feel the way that Iñárritu does, and Affleck is right - he does have a point - but for those of us who used to be disgusted, but now try to be amused (to steal a line from Elvis Costello) it's just a given that these are incredibly profitable properties that are going to be around for a long time.

The posters above certainly won't be the last time that competing franchises look exactly like each other.

More later...

Heist Scenes in the Movies: How Plausible Are They?

This is a guest post by Brandon Meagher:

There are countless classic moments in cinema that
feature jaw-dropping heists, robberies and crime capers. While watching these
shockingly memorable scenes, some viewers might catch themselves wondering,
“Could that really happen?” Others, however, might think, “That’s literally impossible!”

Although we could argue both sides of this debate
indefinitely, here’s the main point to remember: it’s only a movie. Reality
often gets suspended when seen from Hollywood’s exaggerated lens. A blog piecefrom Atlanta Lockmaster states it best by explaining that movie criminals are
the career/veteran like crooks while in reality the majority are young petty
thieves looking to make a big score.

In fact, based on recent studies conducted around bank
heists and robberies, would-be thieves stand a higher chance of receiving a
payout in the movies than out on the streets.

Real Bank Heists vs The Heists in the Movies

According to 2009 research compiled by the FBI, an
average robbery payout in the U.S. totaled roughly $4,000. You were probably
expecting a much larger sum, right?

That assumption likely results from films such as Ben
Affleck’s entertaining crime drama, THE TOWN (2010), for example. In the
opening scene, Affleck and his gang of Boston thugs steal well over $4,000 with
automatic assault rifles and frightening masks. Watch this scene and determine
for yourself if such a reckless feat could be successfully replicated
off-screen.

Criminals Opening Safes On Screen -- I Can Do
That...Right?

Another scenic moment many moviegoers love is an intense
safe cracking sequence. Our eyes bulge and spines stiffen as we intently watch
the sweat dripping down a character’s face while he or she forces open a
deposit box, full of valuable jewels or cold hard cash. One such scene particularly
stands out as classic edge-of-your-seat cinema -- Charlize Theron’s
pulse-pounding heist from THE ITALIAN JOB (2003). With her enemies on hot
pursuit, Theron’s character still manages to crack a safe and escape with the
loot in stacks of gold in under two minutes.

In actuality, however, the process of breaking into a
lockbox is more complex and time consuming. The World Champion safecracker
takes an average time of 5 minutes to open a secure bank vault. You can view
his impressive performance on the Discovery Channel.

Moreover, the world’s most secure bank vaults require
around 15-30 minutes for even the most experienced safecracker to break open.

Beating The Motion Sensors -- They Make it Look So Easy!

Fans of the crime genre also tend to enjoy scenes
involving motion sensors such as this iconic moment in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
(1996) when super-spy Ethan Hunt, played by formidable action star Tom Cruise,
repels down a secure vault and catches his own sweat to avoid motion detection.

After watching this far-fetched exploit, you might be
shaking your head at the sheer lack of believability. Nevertheless, Cruise’s
fictional stunt actually served as inspiration for a real-life robbery in 2010.
This case involved a group of South Brunswick, New Jersey, thieves who pulled
off a Mission Impossible-esque heist at a local Best Buy. Using power tools,
they cut a hole in the store’s roof, repelled through that opening and stole
$26,000 worth of laptop computers, while managing to avoid touching the floor.
This enabled them to evade both motion sensors and security cameras.

It’s Just a Movie

Although a rare circumstance, this elaborate crime caper
suggests that, while they seem virtually improbable, some film heists should
not necessarily be discredited as sensationalized box-office drama.   

Regardless of how unrealistic these sequences appear to
you, many moviegoers still agree that the image of a stealth crook breaking
into bank vaults, avoiding motion detector lasers and walking away with a
million dollars is undeniably entertaining.

Are there any scenes from your favorite “Hollywood Heist”
that we haven’t analyzed? Tell us about it in the comment section below!

Sources:

http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/thinking-about-robbing-a-bank-read-this-first/

https://www.safeandvaultstore.com/blog/breaking-into-a-safe/

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/acrobatic_thieves_hit_nj_best.html

About the Author

Brandon Meagher, a graduate from Georgia State University
with a Bachelor of Arts in Film, is a self proclaimed movie junkie and enjoys
watching, talking, and blogging about everything film related. You can check
out more of his work here at Movies on the Mind. He currently resides in Southwest
Florida.

More later...

GONE GIRL: The Film Babble Blog Review

Opening today at a multiplex near you...

GONE GIRL (Dir. David Fincher, 2014)

David Fincher’s adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s bestselling novel is a great, gripping piece of cinema – one of the year’s best. It’s an immaculately crafted thriller that will throw you for many loops throughout its twisty narrative, while at the same time it provides a chilling commentary on the troubling impact of public perception, and how matrimony can drive one mad.

Ben Affleck, in perhaps his most layered performance, plays Nick Dunne, who finds on the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary that his beautiful blonde Amy (Rosamund Pike) is missing, and there’s a broken glass table and traces of blood around the house to suggest foul play.

Affleck calls the cops, and a pair of detectives, Kim Dickens (THE BLIND SIDE, Treme) and Patrick Fugit (ALMOST FAMOUS), begin investigating the disappearance. Through flashbacks we see the young couple in their early courtship as young idealistic magazine writers that are “so cute I want to punch us in the face,” as Pike puts it.

We learn that after the recession left them both jobless, the married couple moved to Affleck’s hometown of North Carthage, Missouri to help take care of his dying mother. Affleck opens a local bar with his twin sister (Carrie Coon) with Pike’s trust fund money, and teaches community college, while unhappy housewife Pike, heard in voiceover, details the deterioration of their marriage in her diary.

Led by Missi Pyle as a Nancy Grace-style cable TV pundit, the media scrutinize Affleck and Pike’s relationship, with suspicions from all quarters coming in that he’s responsible for her death, even though there’s been no body found.

There’s so many tasty twists that it would be wrong to go any deeper into the ins and outs of the plot, I’ll just say that halfway through this film’s two and a half hour running time you’ll get the first of several satisfying shockers.

As somebody who has been hated in real life (see: GIGLI), Affleck nails his part as the “a corn-fed, salt-of-the-earth Missouri boy” who’s grown cynical with his deer-in-the-headlights reaction to cameras at the first press conference and his nervousness towards the crowd at a candlelight vigil are dead-on. He pulls off the attempts to take control of the situation with mighty aplomb as well.

Pike, who should be a household name after her sharply focused work here, gives us a character with whom we initially trust and sympathize, but the more we learn, the less we like.

But as Affleck and Pike are perfectly cast, so are Tyler Perry (yes, that Tyler Perry) as a slick Johnny Cochran-ish lawyer, Neil Patrick Harris as a creepy ex-boyfriend of Pike’s, and Casey Wilson (SNL, Happy Endings) as a ditzy neighbor claiming to be Pike’s best friend, and David Clennon and Lisa Barnes as Pike’s rich parents who had co-authored a series of childrens’ books inspired by their daughter (“Amazing Amy”).

Author Flynn has refashioned her novel into the film’s sprawling yet concise screenplay, which is laced with wicked wit, as well as some grotesque touches that moviegoers won’t soon forget. Fincher’s procedural skills have been well honed in films such as SE7EN and ZODIAC, and they’re on vivid and immersive display here.

GONE GIRL is Fincher’s best film since 2010’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK (his 2011 version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGO TATTOO wasn’t bad; just a bit redundant, since the Swedish original pretty much covered it), and it’s the most solid, intelligent thriller I’ve seen in years.

Its haunting ending had me trembling, and thinking, even though I know my marriage (coincidentally also at the five year mark) is on much better ground than theirs, that I should better watch my step.

More later...