Fun In Parts, "Suicide Squad" Is Still Spoiled By the Same Old Wanky D/C Plotting and Characterization

Will Smith and Margot Robbie display good chemistry in their second 
film together.

Like several of its main characters, Suicide Squad suffers from some sort of personality disorder. At times, it feels fresh, vibrant, and kinetic, operating with the same type of tongue-in-cheek mania that defined Deadpool. But unlike that incredibly successful Marvel adaptation, this D/C Comics joint fouls up many of the basics of superhero 101. The main bad guy sucks of course (that’s usually the way it goes), and the climax involves the same tired race to stop some doohickey from destroying the world (ditto). But worse than the that, the fights aren’t very dynamic, the logic of the whole thing is a mess, and, the characterization is problematic at best. As a result, the film plays a lot like The Losers, another mediocre team-up film from D/C that basically nobody remembers.

However, while The Losers was a totally innocuous property, Suicide Squad features small roles for Batman and Joker, two of the most popular comic book characters on the planet, and thus it can be sold as a major event to fans. As such, it simultaneously reaps the benefit of a built-in audience and gets crushed under the weight of expectations.

When I say small roles, I'm not kidding. Batman (Ben Affleck) and Flash (Ezra Miller) are inserted into short sequences solely to provide set-up for our antiheros. Joker (Jared Leto) has more to do, but not much -- he's really nothing more than tangential chaos on the margins of the main story. He's an interesting tertiary baddie, but he basically rates less on the importance scale than Yondu did in Guardians of the Galaxy.

Instead, the primary focus of the film is on the titular suicide squad, or rather it's supposed to be. The idea here is that ruthless government official Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) has implanted explosive devices into a gallery of gifted villains, with the aims of forcing them to do the nation's dirty work. It's a familiar concept, but also a good one. Unfortunately, only half the team gets any semblance of development, while the rest serve as little more than set-dressing.

This is comically evident during a finale in which the villain attempts to neutralize our heroes by promising to fulfill their deepest desires. Conflicted mercenary and expert marksman Deadshot (Will Smith), Joker's crazy mol Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), fire-wielding El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) and Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), the soldier in charge of all these wackos, all have visions of their desires, but the film doesn't even bother investing the time in the other members of the team, including Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), and martial arts expert Katana (Karen Fukuhara), a character so extraneous that she doesn't even get an introduction in the opening montage.

Not that it would've meant much. In his introduction, Captain Boomerang is shown to be a shit-bag who turns on his accomplices at the first opportunity, and yet, with no development whatsoever, the script has him go all Han Solo/Jack Sparrow in the end. A similar moment occurs with El Diablo, who is far better realized but still doesn't earn his departing line about the team being his new family. Excepting the bonds Deadshot independently forms with Harley and Flag, none of this camaraderie is earned in even a kinda-sorta way. Consider how much less credible these people feel as a team than the characters of Guardians or The Avengers do.

This all sounds super negative, but the film is a mostly enjoyable watch. It's stylish, has a lively soundtrack and some game performances. Smith and Kinnaman are fine anchors, and although he isn't given the room to deliver an iconic take like his forbearers, Leto is interesting as a thug Joker. Robbie and Davis are the standouts, suggesting distinct shades of villainy and vulnerability, which is a pretty cool thing to say when talking about such a dude-heavy movie and genre. As poorly as the film serves the rest of its cast, it serves these characters pretty well, which is a valuable thing since they are the five most important ones. Still, I wish the second tier characters had been afforded the same level of thought that Marvel affords the likes of Scarlett Witch, Vision or Falcon.

But, of course they weren't, because this isn't Marvel, it's D/C. Like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, this feels like a cool concept sunk by poor characterization and screwy plotting. Of chief concern with that last point -- why the hell is Waller even bothering to utilize such potential security threats when she has access to information that could lead her to more heroic accomplices like Batman, Flash and Aquaman (Jason Mamoa)? I'm going to assume it has something to do with a sadistic impulse to control powerful beings, but, once again, that means the D/C Universe is lazily asking me to just assume character beats it's not actually developing (as they did with Lex in Dawn of Justice). Not exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking about when I hope for consistency in such a cinematic universe. C+

"Captain America: Civil War" Does the Warring Super Hero Thing Better Than "Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice"

Both Dawn of Justice and Civil War promise super hero smack downs.

It's pretty hard not to compare Captain America: Civil War and Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Not only did they come out within weeks of each other, but they both feature a super hero throw down built around a disagreement over civilian casualties during world saving battles. Furthermore, they both focus on normally squeaky clean, super-powered American icons acting as renegades while traditionally darker billionaires with major tech advancements try to stop them. The big difference is that Civil War features coherent conflict rooted in long-term character development, while Dawn of Justice is an uneven mish-mash of incomprehensible plot turns and motivations, with some nonsensical foreshadowing thrown in.

Before going any further, I should probably list my reviewer baggage in the interest of transparency. Going into these films, I expected to like Civil War more than Dawn of Justice. That’s basically because I have long admired Marvel’s gutsy move to do a slow build with their cinematic universe, while I suspected D/C was rushing theirs in an effort to get to that big Avengers-type money as quickly as possible.

That doesn’t mean I hate D/C. I loved Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, liked Man of Steel quite a bit, love Ben Affleck, and appreciate the cinematic grandiosity director Zack Snyder is trying to bring to this whole thing. It also doesn’t mean I’m totally in the tank for all things Marvel. They rely far too heavily on macguffins, generally lack compelling villains and tend to prioritize synergistic plotting over artistic identity. Sure they gleefully embrace a lot of genres and develop good characters, but there’s a reason many of their directors have been culled from the television world. Unlike in traditional cinema where individualism and idiosyncrasy is praised, TV values a director’s ability to blend and make his or her episode(s) feel like one piece in a larger puzzle. So too does Marvel.

Given the length of this piece, I think it's best not to go over the plots of the films. If you need a plot refresher, head over to Wikipedia, because otherwise I'm just diving right in to analysis.

The biggest appeal of both these films is the fact that they’re packed with super heroes fighting against each other. You can tell that much simply by looking at the posters, which feature heroes on opposite sides staring at each other intently. And action-wise, both films are pretty great. The central fight of Civil War is amazingly fun, and while nothing in Dawn of Justice is quite up to that level, it totally owns the Batman (Affleck) fights, showcasing both the fluid choreography of the Nolan films and all those wonderful toys of the Tim Burton ones.

Promising a big melee like that is a fun, but dangerous proposition for a film, one that can lead to great action, but muddled narratives. Overcrowding in comic book movies rarely works because it requires too much juggling and doesn’t allow for enough development. Spider-Man 3 and Batman and Robin are great examples, of this, and to an extent, so are the mostly good X-Men movies, which consistently marginalize huge chunks of the team in favor of Wolverine, Magneto and Xavier.

Cap's team operates as rouge agents once the Sarkovia accords are passed.

There’s no doubt Civil War is far more crowded than Dawn of Justice, but while it has four times as many super heroes, it does a better job of servicing their stories. Spider-man (Tom Holland) and Ant-man (Paul Rudd) are ringers for each side (and provided the highlights of the blowout fight), but everybody else has strong motivations rooted in actual character development. Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson, the soul and stealth MVP of the MCU) get particularly strong material to play. The same can’t be said of Dawn of Justice, which relegates Superman (Henry Cavill) to a bit player in favor of doing what’s basically a Batman movie on drugs.

Discounting Dawn of Justice’s “blink and you’ll miss ‘em” cameos from Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), each film actually introduces two new super heroes, one of whom (Batman, Black Panther) is far more central to the story than the other (Spider-man, Wonder Woman).

Batman and Black Panther have similar revenge arcs, and both actors make strong impressions. However, although Batman is basically the main character of Dawn of Justice, he’s very one note, and structuring his about-face around the fact that both he and Superman have mothers named Martha is pretty goddamn stupid. Meanwhile, Black Panther isn’t asked to carry the load of his film, and yet he still feels more dimensional and his turnaround tracks better dramatically.

The inclusion of Spider-man and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) in these films is inorganic and reeks of corporate desire to sell toys and advance the universe engines at play. Wonder Woman is kept intentionally mysterious, so Spider-man ends up feeling like more of a character. He’s also a hell of a lot more fun, which helps mitigate issues surrounding his inclusion.

But really, inserting characters into these stories as setups for future films doesn’t bother me all that much. To some degree, these movies are always going to do that, so you just have to hope they can also stand on their own as well. Spider-man and Wonder Woman function fine, and the D/C cameos found in the videos Wonder Woman watches are appropriate teases.

However, sometimes these things go a bit too far, and I’d venture to say Dawn of Justice oversteps when it has Flash come from the future to warn Batman in a dream sequence. I assume Superman will become evil, maybe due to red kryptonite, and this message will tie in with The Justice League somehow, but, as a piece of this movie, it’s just confusing and feels like wasted minutes. In fact, all the Batman dreams feel that way. If all that time dedicated to dream sequences was spent on further developing characters, the film would’ve benefited greatly.

In stories like this, it’s a fait accompli that the main bad guy is going to be sidelined. That’s because narratively speaking, the main bad guy isn’t the main adversary; the other super hero serves that function until the third act at which time the super heroes basically hug and realize they need to join forces to stop the actual bad guy.

To it's credit, Dawn of Justice definitely looks cool.

I fully expected this dynamic going into these movies, but, once again, it’s pretty surprising just how similar the set-ups are. Neither Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) nor Helmut Zemo (Daniel Brühl) are some side threat looking to take over the world; instead both are just interested in coercing super heroes into killing each other.

Their reasoning is what separates the two. Zemo was a Sarvokian special ops type whose family was killed during the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron. The movie implies he’s trying to gather a collection of super soldiers for a nefarious purpose, but that’s just a red herring. All he wants is to get revenge on the Avengers, and his whole plan is built around exposing the fact that Bucky Barnes killed Tony Stark’s parents to accomplish that task. The plotting’s not airtight – it’s left unclear how Zemo knew such information existed or how he knew Captain America would react the way he does, but it’s simple and it works.

Meanwhile, Luthor’s motivations are far more complicated. He’s basically a megalomaniacal millionaire driven mad by a grab-bag of shit, including thirst for supremacy, the very existence of metahumans, and daddy issues. If I think hard enough about it, I’d guess his daddy issues caused him to become a cut-throat social climber/innovator, which brought about a sort of hot-shit god complex that was completely obliterated by the existence of meta-humans, chiefly Superman. But that requires a lot of work on my part, while asking very little of the screenplay.

Truth be told, that’s really not a bad arc, and could totally play if given the proper development. But when you’re fitting all your world-building into the margins, it just doesn’t work because it doesn’t have the time too. If you’re going to have a sidelined bad guy, better to have one with streamlined motivations, instead of ambitious overreaching that leads to a crazed Luthor inexplicably gaining access to the information within the Krytonian ship and, even more ridiculously transforming the corpse of Zod (Michael Shannon) into Doomsday.

But that's generally the whole deal with Dawn of Justice, which looks great and gets some things right, but continuously borders on ridiculousness. And it's so far beyond the Doomsday crap, the Martha thing (god, the Martha thing), and the Flash dream sequence. It's also the fact that Batman is gullible as hell, or that he nonsensically abandons his kryptonite spear, or that Superman's super hearing super sucks (not only can he not hone in on his kidnapped mother's location the way he does routinely with Lois (Amy Adams), but he can't even hear a bomb that's like 10 yards away from him).

This meme that references Step Brothers is the perfect takedown of

a major plot point in Dawn of Justice.

Many of Dawn of Justice’s problems are born of D/C’s insistence in taking short-cuts toward a team-up movie instead of laying the proper foundation over a series of films like Marvel did. I can imagine a world in which D/C Comics wasn’t taking short-cuts to The Justice League, but instead decided to make a legit Man of Steel sequel that took place during the 18 months skipped between the two movies, allowing for some development of the Clark and Lois dynamic, as well as the Luthor’s obsession and a hint about his search into metahumans (say for instance, a post-credit sequence indicating he found footage of Wonder Woman).

They could’ve then followed that up with their Wonder Woman movie, which could’ve ended with a post-credit sequence showing Wonder Woman discovering Luthor has her picture. This would’ve effectively laid the seeds for her whole story thread in Dawn of Justice, while also grounding her and Luthor as actual characters worth giving a shit about, not to mention lending further shading (and thus further shit giving) to Lois, Clark and they’re relationship. Then, you could let Dawn of Justice play out as a Batman introduction, while setting up The Justice League.

But no. Instead they decided to bum rush Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor and metahuman concept into one movie all because they wanted their own Avengers without waiting through years of buildup. As a result, Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice is hit-and-miss entertainment, especially compared to the well-oiled, emotionally involving Captain America: Civil War.

Captain America: Civil War A-, Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, B-

For added fun, here's my personal rankings from all these franchises.

Marvel Cinematic Universe

1. Captain America: The First Avenger A
2. Iron Man A
3. Guardians of the Galaxy A- (review)
4. Captain America: Civil War A-
5. The Avengers B+ (review)
6. Captain America: The Winter Soldier B+
7. Thor B+
8. Ant-Man B+ (review)
9. Iron Man 3 B+ (review)
10. Avengers: Age of Ultron B
11. Thor: The Dark Ages B-
12. The Incredible Hulk B-
13. Iron Man 2 C+

Batman Films

1. The Dark Knight A+
2. Batman Begins A
3. Batman Returns A
4. The Dark Knight Rises A- (review)
5. Batman B+
6. Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice B-
7. Batman Forever C+
8. Batman and Robin D+

Superman Films

1. Superman A-
2. Superman II B+
3. Man of Steel B+ (review)
4. Superman Returns B-
5. Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice B-
6. Superman III D
7. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace haven’t seen it

Irreverent and Heart-Warming "Guardians of the Galaxy" Demonstrates the Mastery of Marvel

The chemistry of the central team makes Guardians a roaring success.

With Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four and X-Men owned by other movie studios, Marvel was forced to focus on lesser known superheroes when it began releasing films as an independent studio six years ago. Many questioned their plan to build multiple movies in an interconnected universe around the likes of Iron Man, Captain America and Thor, but Marvel pulled it off with aplomb.

 

Since taking those initial risks in the lead-up to The Avengers, the studio has been coasting a bit, chugging along on the strength of sequels as they put the pieces in motion to continue cultivating an expansive Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

But could they get people to show up for a truly obscure property, and what did it mean for the company's long-term hopes if one of their films failed? The answer to the first question is a resounding yes, and the answer to the second question will have to wait until next summer, because Guardians of the Galaxy is a smash hit, and a deserving one at that.

 

One of the things I've enjoyed most about the Marvel output thus far is how willing they've been to mix things up by embracing elements from other genres. Captain America: The First Avenger was a period war film, more reminiscent of Indiana Jones than a typical run-of-the-mill superhero outing. Thor played up the Shakespearean overtones, and from what I've heard, Captain America: The Winter Soldier takes more than a few cues from the political espionage thrillers of the '70s, while next summer's Ant-Man is said to be a heist film.

 

This marks the third sci-fi franchise to cast Zoe Saldana as the female lead.

Although Guardians hits most of the beats you might expect in the super hero genre, it's actually more of a space adventure in the vein of Star Wars. In fact, one could argue this is practically the Star Wars film fanboys were hoping to get back when George Lucas announced he'd be making a prequel trilogy.

 

Like Star Wars, Guardians focuses on a rag tag team of assorted underdogs ultimately growing into a pseudo family with the common goal of thwarting an intergalactic evil. The team includes a kick-ass princess, a tough-talking mercenary with a gigantic partner whose vocal intonations only he understands, and a leader with a mysterious lineage. There's no robot side kicks -- instead they've got a bad ass warrior looking to avenge the death of his family -- but, overall, it's pretty damn familiar.

 

That being said, this isn't just some Star Wars clone. Even though they are similar in broad strokes, the lead characters here are all uniquely defined and well inhabited, and beyond that, they are surrounded by a world that is densely populated and  feels authentically lived in. Besides Guardians operates on a way loopier energy -- in truth, it plays like a film you'd find in the middle of a spectrum that had Star Wars at one end and Spaceballs at the other.

 

As Peter Quill/Star Lord, Chris Pratt officially announces himself as a movie star, proving more than capable of carrying a blockbuster on his shoulders. He's been doing a nice job of modulating his ascendance in Hollywood over the last few years, parlaying his successful comedic performance on Parks and Recreation into a number of diverse film roles in the likes of Moneyball, Her and Zero Dark Thirty. With this, The Lego Movie and next year's Jurassic World, things are going into overdrive for the hardworking actor.

 





A post-credit cameo by Howard the Duck is a nice nod to the last time a

Marvel property this weird made it to the big screen. That film was produced

by George Lucas, whose Star Wars clearly influenced Guardians.



But the best-in-show work involves the motion capture characters. Watching Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel), it's hard not to think of Jar Jar Binks -- how this movie could do this type of thing so perfectly after The Phantom Menace flubbed it so badly is astonishing; and I don't just mean that in reference to the quality of the special effects.

 

Some reviews have commented that the film wastes many of it's best known actors in little roles (and this beside casting the two biggest draws as CGI characters). However, while that is sometimes true (Glenn Close's presence is pointless), the likes of John C. Reilly and Benicio Del Toro get to steal a few scenes while adding a believable depth to the proceedings.

 

The film isn't all perfect. Freshness and tone represent the film's greatest strengths, but there are parts where Guardians gets a little too quippy, and it's ultimately just another in a long line of action movies that require the heroes keep a powerful doohickey out of the hands of the bad guys (snore).

 

Furthermore, this is yet another Marvel movie where said bad guys barely rate. Thanos (Josh Brolin) is little more than window dressing, and Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) is only a marginally better version of Malekith, the super shitty baddie from Thor: The Dark World. However, I will give the film one thing -- it does include Yondu (Michael Rooker), who, in just a few scenes, becomes the most interesting non-Loki antagonist the Marvel movie universe has to offer (for those keeping track of the Star Wars parallels, he's kind of the film's Jabba the Hut).

 

I could probably go on and on about the film for quite a while, but all you need to know is that it works like gangbusters, mostly because the central characters are so fun to watch together, but also because it has a lot of heart. There was a real chance for disaster here -- two of the five leads are a tree who constantly says "I am Groot" and a short-tempered raccoon -- but writer/director James Gunn and his cast and crew have really pulled off something special. A-

The Wolverine Marks a Wasted Opportunity

Hugh Jackman is one hugely jacked man. See what I did there?

The Wolverine has done relatively well with critics due to its atypically somber and intimate approach to the superhero genre, but, by and large, the praise is overblown.

The film aspires to be a slow burn, character-focused actioner with a flawed and broken antihero, something along the lines of the underrated George Clooney film The American or even Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. However, while star Hugh Jackman seems game and there’s some interesting themes buried in the narrative, The Wolverine collapses under the weight of nonsensical plot machinations, lackluster development and a silly finale.

The movie opens with a Yeti-looking Wolverine eking out an isolated existence in wilderness of the Yukon, still haunted from being forced to kill ladylove Jean Grey at the conclusion of X-Men: The Last Stand. However, after being tracked down by pixie-cute martial artist Yukio (Rila Fukushima), he quickly finds himself enroute to Japan to bid farewell to Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi), a Japanese acquaintance he saved from certain death during the bombing of Nagasaki.

When he arrives, Wolverine learns Yashida has become a billionaire industrialist and that, instead of saying goodbye, what he actually wants to do is take Wolverine’s regenerative power, saving his own life while simultaneously granting Wolverine mortality that will eventually lead to the peaceful and honorable death Yashida believes he desires. After Wolverine unexpectedly scoffs at the idea, Yashida dies in the middle of the night.



"Poison Ivy," I mean "Viper," terrorizes Wolverine's girlfriend.

From there, Wolverine gets embroiled in family politics, becoming the protector of Yashida’s granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) who Yashida names as heir to his empire. This revelation causes uproar with Mariko’s father, and ultimately the Yakuza, an ancient clan of ninjas and Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova), a mysterious mutant who weakens Wolverine’s regenerative capabilities, factor into the plot.



There’s plenty of action, including a standoff on top of a bullet train and a beautifully shot sequence in which Wolverine goes up against numerous arrow wielding ninjas, but the film’s actually more of a drama in which our hero comes to terms with his immortality and learns to love again.

These through lines are strong conceptually, but the film botches them. For Wolverine’s existential crisis to carry weight, the film should’ve devoted more screen time to the development of Wolverine’s friendship with Yashida, perhaps even showing our hero vocalizing the burdens of everlasting life while hiding in a hole after the bombing. A similar criticism could be levied at the film’s romantic relationship. Although Jackman and Okamoto have a nice chemistry, there’s just not enough there, and, from a story perspective, it makes little sense that Wolverine would pull a Casablanca and fly away from the woman he loves, simply stating “I’m a soldier, and I’ve been away to long.”



Apparently, this scene intentionally evokes Akira Kurosawa's

Throne of Blood. That's cool.

However, that nonsensical plot point is nothing compared to the ludicrous (but telegraphed) twist in which viewers discover Yashida faked his own death and took up residence in an adamantium robot, biding his time until he could steal Wolverine’s power by force via drilling into his claws.

Forgetting for a second that the adamantium-heavy plan makes little sense in it’s own right (Wolverine’s actual powers have nothing to do with the adamantium skeleton Stryker grafted onto him), it’s tough to comprehend why Yashida would go through all the trouble of faking his death and putting his granddaughter in harms way when he could simply imprison Wolverine while he’s sleeping under his roof. It also doesn’t make sense why Mariko and Yukio wouldn’t be in on this plan, and why exactly Viper is helping Yashida at all.

Overall, the film plays like a series of artistic compromises, and while some parts are effectively thoughtful, others are mind-numbingly cartoonish.  Given the end result, it’s easy to imagine why original director Darren Aronfsky was attracted to the project, and why he ultimately bailed on it.

 

In watching The Wolverine, I was reminded of Last Stand, another X-Men film with some interesting ideas that downgraded at director right before production. Although most X-Men fans revile that film, The Wolverine has been embraced as a return to form for the character after two disappointing entries (Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). However, from where I’m standing, it’s basically the same as Last Stand – a wasted opportunity. C

Half-Baked 'Man of Steel' is Both Awesome and Annoying

If half the battle is not looking silly in the suit, Henry Cavill
was pretty set from the get go.

Thus far, Man of Steel has sharply divided audiences. It currently rates rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet it garnered an A- CinemaScore. Some, like HitFix’s Drew McWeeny, have passionately argued its merits, while others like Ryan Silberstein, our friend over at Filmhash, have criticized the film for having a lack of substance.

That diversity of opinion seems appropriate to me, since I somehow found the film to be simultaneously infuriating and delightful. The reason for that is simple – nearly every major story impulse by the creative team (including director Zack Snyder, producer Christopher Nolan, and screenwriter David Goyer) comes across as a bold and laudable choice that somehow got mucked up in the execution. 

Take, for instance, the film’s main thematic drive, which basically concerns two things – the ability to choose your destiny and the question of what the world will make of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) once he is revealed. 

On Krypton, where citizens are engineered for very specific purposes, Kal-El’s father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) predicts his son will choose his own destiny and that the people of Earth will embrace him as a guiding god and symbol of hope. On Earth, adoptive father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) also believes Clark will choose what type of man he will become and that, whatever that decision is, it will change the world. However, unlike Jor-El, he is afraid about how the world will respond to a super-powered alien being.

So I get that Lois Lane is assisting the army and all, but why do 

they give her a jumpsuit?

Much of this framework is laid very carefully, but then laziness sets in and the story begins to lose its grip. A devastating tragedy results from Jonathan Kent’s insistence that Clark keep his powers hidden, and Costner plays the hell out of it, but the whole situation leading up to that moment is such inorganic horseshit, that it undercuts the importance of what should be a pivotal moment for our hero. 

Ultimately, Clark is forced to out himself to the public because of the ultimatum proposed by chief villain General Zod (Michal Shannon), a Kryptonian he knows to have killed his birth father, which sort of defangs the whole choice thing. To be fair, he does get to choose how he responds, opting for the Jesus-like choice to put his faith in human kind, and the captive sequence that follows is one of the best (and most charming) parts of the movie.

Unfortunately, the film then quickly becomes an endless barrage of action, and it never truly explores the question of if this super-powered god will be accepted by Earth’s inhabitants, which is odd given just how much time is spent setting it up. Having seen the finished product, it seems the movie may have been better served by further leaning into the whole Christ analogy it pushes. I’m not saying this film needed its own version of the crucifixion and resurrection, but simply a little time showing humanity’s response to Superman and what to do with/about him. Sacrificing ten minutes of action to do so would’ve made for a better movie.

Having said that, the action is the most noteworthy thing about the picture, and what’s on display here is some of the best spectacle you’re likely to see on film. The sheer scale is mindboggling and the ambition is commendable. Man of Steel opens with a visually imaginative (and surprisingly substantive) sequence in Krypton and it ends with a 40-minute throw-down action sequence that is awe-inspiring in its depiction of collateral damage, which a consulting firm recently estimated would result in $700 billion in physical damages, one million injured victims and over 100,000 deaths.

There's a good drinking game to be made based around
product placement in this movie.

The film has been criticized for featuring a Superman that allows such destruction, but, while I thought the action was a bit overlong, I found it to be a refreshingly “realistic” depiction of how a fight between super aliens would play out. That said, the film definitely would’ve worked better if the filmmakers had shown Superman’s sense of horror at what was happening around him. If they had, the climactic moment in the train station would’ve carried a lot more heft. Instead it’s almost a joke.*

*For those counting, that makes two extremely important and emotional moments for the lead character that are totally undermined by the immediate lead up to them.

Then, of course, there’s the way the film has revised the whole approach to Lois Lane. Here, it’s actually believable that Lois (Amy Adams) is a crack investigative journalist, because she’s not depicted as a dummy who doesn’t realize she’s working side-by-side a fellow reporter who looks just like the superhero she spends so much time with. Instead she’s a smart, driven reporter who, after getting her life saved by a super-powered mystery man, begins to methodically trace his tracks and discover the truth.

Once she does, Lois gets three solid scenes with Clark –one where he explains why he doesn’t want her to expose him to the world, one where she interviews him as army officials watch on, and one where she comforts him in a moment of total anguish after the train station climax. They’re all strong moments, but because of how much little interaction they have besides that, the romance angle that gets grafted onto the story seems a giant miscalculation. The film does a good job of showing how she could fall for him, but not vice versa, and so the kiss moment rings false. More restraint would’ve been wise, as the three aforementioned scenes would’ve made strong foundation pieces for romance exploration in a sequel where she (and we) will assumedly learn more about the Clark Kent side of Kal-El.

The film offers what are arguably definitive takes on
Superman, Lois Lane and Jor-El. Zod? Not so much.

There are so many more pluses and minuses in this film that I could go on and on. I understand it’s something necessary with a big film like this, but the record-breaking product placement was a little much for my taste. However, one thing I’ll give the filmmakers – they got the casting right. Cavill brings a physicality to Superman that no other actor has before, while also offering a tremendous amount of confidence and benevolent warmth. It’s a star-making performance, and, although he’s been around for a while, after his work here, I expect a lot of doors will open for him.

Adams, Crowe, Costner, and Christopher Meloni (as a Detective Stabler-like army guy) all provide great work, with Costner being best in show. In fact, given the amount of time spent exploring the motivations of Crowe’s Jor-El, more time with Costner’s Jonathan probably would’ve been welcome for balance sake.  Meanwhile, Zod has a refreshingly complex and relatable motivation for what he’s doing, and they’ve cast a great actor in the role, but the whole thing is brought down a peg by some convoluted business concerning a genetic codex and Shannon’s decision to dial everything up to 11. Like Crowe, Shannon is saddled with a lot of expository dialogue, but unfortunately, he doesn’t come across nearly as well.

Overall, I’m more positive on the film than negative, but I feel like I can’t really judge the thing until the inevitable sequel arrives. If that sequel builds on what’s here and further explorers the notions of how Earth is responding to this guy, the film may seem better in hindsight. But right now Man of Steel seems a collection of good ideas and standout moments enveloped in a half-baked film. B

Video Review: The Green Lantern Makes One Terrible Superhero Movie

For some reason, the filmmakers decided to have Reynolds 

wear silly contacts when in the Green Lantern costume.

I can’t say this with full confidence, because I haven’t seen the likes of Elektra, Catwoman and their ilk, but The Green Lantern may be one of the worst superhero films of all time (excluding micro-budget genre bottom-feeders).

The film focuses on Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), an irresponsible fighter pilot for Ferris Aircraft who winds up getting recruited into the ranks of an intergalactic police force known as the Green Lantern Corps when a dying alien known as Abin Sur bequeaths him a magical ring after crash landing on earth. Abin Sur is dying because he was attacked by Parallax, a fear-eating cloud he once imprisoned that is now free and aiming to wreck havoc on the universe.

Hal is transported to Oa, the horrendously green-screened home base of the Green Lantern Corps, where he is taught and trained by Jar Jar Binks-style CGI Lanterns that look like a fish (voice of Geoffrey Rush) and a bulked up Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo (voice of Michael Clarke Duncan). Lead Lantern Sinestro (Mark Strong) judges Hal for being filled with fear and defeats him in battle, causing Hal to quit the corps and return to Earth (although they don’t make him give back the powerful ring that allows Lanterns to create anything they can imagine).

Meanwhile, Abin Sur’s body is found by the government, and, at the urging of his powerful Senator father (Tim Robbins), scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) is brought in by government agent Amanda Waller (Angela Bassett) to perform an autopsy. During this procedure, Hammond is infected by remnants of Parallax, which prey on his fear, causing him to become unhinged and grotesque (but on the plus side he gains telekinetic powers).

Eventually, Hal pulls his head out of his ass and does battle with Hammond, Parallax, and his own self-doubt. A lame romance with Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), a fellow fighter pilot and the manager of Ferris Aircraft, is also shoehorned into this thing.

That’s the general outline of the story, but it doesn’t do justice to just how terrible/stupid the movie gets. Even though there are some talented actors here and director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, GoldenEye) is a competent professional who’s made good films in the past, this movie flat out sucks.

The most obvious flaw is the laughable special effects, but the main problem is the script. On a conceptual level, I think this whole thing is just a bit too ambitious and dense. The Green Lantern mythology is given a whole lot of buildup here, so much so that the first 10 minutes of the film is dedicated to establishing the Corps and the cloud-eating bad guy. This all results in the marginalization of the hero, as he, his love interest, and his human adversary take a backseat to the whole Lantern lore.

It's rare to have worse chemistry/banter than this, but
hey, I hear they got a real-life relationship out of it.

I can understand the reasoning behind this, but I think the property would’ve been better served by limiting the potential for overload. I’d have cut out a lot of the Parallax stuff and saved it for a sequel, while instead concentrating on a better-defined hero story (fleshing out Hal, Carol and Hector). Once the audience was eating out of my hand, then I’d have felt comfortable introducing the denser aspects of the mythology and the goofy CGI.

All of that aside, the script just sucks on a line-by-line level. No character in this thing is interestingly developed and the dialogue is ridiculous. And so much dumb stuff happens, that it’s impossible to keep track of the inanity. Here’s just a small portion of it:

• Hal is given a dead-daddy back story, a common element in superhero films that, as used here, is meant to explain his flip attitude and add to the theme of overcoming fear. However, in a rare move, he also seems to have a large family, including a nephew and what I assume are supposed to be two brothers. These characters serve zero purpose – they get one scene that is totally irrelevant to the movie. It’s as if the producers thought, “This guy is coming across like to much of a douche, so we need to show him being the awesome Uncle so people will like him.” Didn’t work.
• For some reason, the media intensely covers developments at Ferris Aircraft, reporting on a stunt Hal pulls that results in a crash and a private company party, and yet they don’t seem very concerned with the superhero flying around. To be fair, maybe that’s just in an attempt to keep with the tone of the piece, because, no one seems all that blown away by the whole superhero thing. The only person who reacts in any real way is Hal’s scientist buddy, who still acts like an idiot. Case in point: when Hal transforms into his suit in front of him, the buddy just yelps “Green!”
• Hal keeps turning up during important scenes with no indication of how he knew to do so. At one point in the film, Hector Hammond goes berserk in some government science lab and attacks his father and a bunch of government agents, and the Green Lantern inexplicably shows up to fight him. Similarly, he crashes a summit between Sinestro and the Oa Guardian Council in which they are discussing the use of a ring powered by fear to take down Parallax. Even though he has never been made aware of this plan (nor the council for that matter), Hal mysteriously shows up and delivers a speech about why it shouldn’t be enacted.
• In the scene where Hal shows up to fight Hector Hammond, both men realize who their adversary is, fight for a bit and then just go home. Yes, that’s right. Even though Hal knows who Hector is and knows that he just killed several people, he doesn’t attempt to root him out and take him down. He just drops the whole thing and moves on to the next nonsensical scene.
• Even though a fleet of the best Lanterns couldn’t defeat Parallax, Hal does so on his own by leading it close to the sun, which apparently doesn’t destroy a mere human but somehow results in the demise of an amorphous cloud monster.
• And while I get it was a big aspect of the comics, the Lantern oath is unbelievably corny. Having Hal recite it right before taking out the bad guy was a laughably bad idea.

Outside of a decent be underutilized Mark Strong, the actors do little to help the film rise above the script. Lively is flat, Robbins, Sarsgaard and Bassett just mail it in, and Reynolds fails to rise to the occasion. Hollywood has been trying to make Reynolds a big star for quite some time, but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards. His patented role is that of a smug, irresponsible douche, and while Tom Cruise and Robert Downey Jr. have milked similar archetypes to great success, it doesn’t seem to be working for Reynolds. I like him quite a bit in supporting roles (Adventureland, Waiting), and he’s had some success when he reigns in the smarm (Just Friends, The Proposal), but as a lead, the guy generally just doesn’t bring it.

Hal's Lantern chums look like buff poop and a weird fish.

What really shocks me about this movie though is that even its best scenes are incredibly mediocre. There really isn’t one thing you can point to and say, “Well at least that was pretty cool and/or well done,” which is pretty rare for the action genre. Say what you will about Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menance, but it features the light saber fight to end all light saber fights. Spider-Man 3 is a blight on the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, but it still has some cool action set pieces and a hilariously campy James Franco performance. And for all their faults, the Transformers movies still offer extraordinary special effects and sound.

Meanwhile, this movie offers nothing better than moments of passable entertainment. The coolest thing about the whole shebang is the hero’s super power, but that even proves a disappointment since the movie does nothing noteworthy with the idea.

That’s pretty much what I’ve got on The Green Lantern, but I do think I need to say one more thing in the interest of full disclosure. I went into my viewing expecting the movie to be terrible. In fact, I only watched it so I could better appreciate The Green Lantern episode of “How Did This Get Made?,” a podcast hosted by comedians Paul Scheer, June Diane Raphael and Jason Mantzoukas that pokes fun at terrible movies. While the movie did prove to be horrible, the podcast episode concerning it was a riot. So if you’ve wasted your time on this dreck, do yourself a favor and listen to the podcast to make it sort of worth it.

Sort of.