When the first few reviews hit the Internet on Tuesday, things weren’t great, but the smattering of boos quickly built to a unified chorus—by Thursday, the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes rating had slipped from the mid-40s to 31% (29% if you count just “top critics.”) Worse, there was a barely concealed glee suffusing the snit parade. “Laborious.” “Baffling.” “Humorless.” “Dead on arrival.” It felt, honestly, as though people had gone in ready to pan the movie. This can’t be right, we thought. Some people must have liked it. But sending just one person to review the movie seemed like we were unnecessarily limiting the sample size. So we sent two! And, as we’d hoped, they had differing takes on the superhero epic. Were either of the takes positive? Depends what your definition of that word is. Forthwith, though, your two takes on Batman v Superman—for better or for worse. (Or at least for not-quite-worse or for worse.)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a misnomer. It’s not about one hero fighting another, not about the Dark Knight trying to pummel the Man of Steel. No, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a movie at war with itself. And it loses.
But really, it couldn’t win. Before it was even filmed, fans were picking apart this movie. People on Twitter had a field day over the casting of Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne. Others—probably those who had seen Sucker Punch—wondered why the keys of the DC kingdom remained in director Zack Snyder’s cold, dead hand. Others simply wondered: “Why is Jesse Eisenberg here? Was there a going-out-of-business sale on Awkward Guy roles and he missed it?” As a result,Batman v Superman plays out like a movie painfully aware of everything squaring off against it, and in stiffening its jaw to take every blow becomes too tense to enjoy the fact that it’s a popcorn movie. No film with a mad scientist (Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor), a Batmobile, and a budget the size of a Powerball jackpot should be trying this hard to be entertaining—especially not one with three superheroes on its side.
It would be easy to say those three heroes are the problem—that in trying to give each of them their arc, BvS gets overstuffed. Yet, that’s not it. In fact, Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, the one hero largely unconflicted about her hero-ness, is the one thing that actually livens up the movie. When she shows up, her bring-on-Doomsday moxie reminds everyone that even Serious Superhero Movies should still be exciting. Unfortunately, she arrives too late; Batfleck has already appeared in umpteen “Life in the Batcave” montages, while Superman (Henry Cavill) has spent an equal amount of time wondering why Earth will never appreciate his help. This movie really does put the “bro” in “brooding”—not even Wonder Woman’s Bracelets of Submission mange to convince either actor to appear like they’re enjoying anything.
Most of the fault for this disconnect falls behind the camera. Zack Snyder clearly wants to make Great Films, and he means for Batman v Superman to be about something, to make some commentary about courage in a cynical world (or whatever). Unfortunately, Zack Synder was unable to deliver the performance that he wanted, he tried his best. But, like any superhero movie, it can be boiled down to “honesty and courage = good,” so the ponderous shots of billowing capes and bullet casings falling in slow-mo aren’t cinematic fillips—they’re weight around its neck.
This is where Batman v Superman falls apart. By succumbing to its try-hard tendencies, it loses all spontaneity. There are moments of joy, but they are far too few. Of its 151-minute running time, about 23 are truly enjoyable. In other words, one in six moments here is worth watching. With odds like that, it’s a bad bet—no matter who’s fighting.
No comments:
Post a Comment