By Brett Blake This review is likely going to read as extremely negative, for which I apologize in advance. I’ll say right up front that - all things considered - I think there’s more good in BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE than there is bad, but it’s easier to discuss the movie’s (many) problems in a broad sense, while its virtues tend to boil down to specific moments that I’d rather not spoil. What I can say for certain is that it’s a frustrating film, a movie of supreme high points and truly dire low points. It’s an epic-scale extravaganza, to be sure, and those looking for grand superhero mayhem will certainly be satisfied, but beyond that, it’s a movie that’s ultimately a bit lacking. Picking up 18 months after MAN OF STEEL (and after a prologue introducing us to Ben Affleck’s new Bruce Wayne/Batman), the story - as one might guess from the title - centers around a growing conflict between Batman and Superman (Henry Cavill), a conflict being influenced heavily by one Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who - for nefarious reasons - wants to see the two heroes battle it out in epic fashion. The likes of Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Wayne’s trusted Alfred (Jeremy Irons), and even the mysterious Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) are all along for the ride as the two titans grow ever closer to trading punches. Walking into the theater, I had two primary concerns: one, that - in an effort to bolster our new Batman - Superman would get kind of shafted, and two, that Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor would be too ridiculous to pose a threat to our heroes. On both those counts, the movie unfortunately comes up short. MAN OF STEEL is a good film, and as an origin story, I think its interpretation of Superman set the character up to be in a more classical vein going forward. That’s not the case in BATMAN v SUPERMAN, however; Superman spends the majority of the film being viewed suspiciously by just about everybody (including Batman and Lex Luthor, most visibly), and there is little joy or optimism to be found in the way the film treats the character. Fans of Superman would surely be hoping the movie would do right by the character, but it kind of doesn’t. The filmmakers were apparently uninterested in giving Superman many opportunities to be, I don’t know, heroic; he gets few standout moments, which is a real shame. Additionally, the movie never really gives Superman a chance to defend himself in any meaningful way against the perspectives voiced by Batman and Luthor, nor does it give him many people in his corner rooting for him, aside from Amy Adams’ Lois Lane. The character himself also takes an enormous amount of abuse in the movie, to the extent that it actually feels sort of perverse, and this carries over into the general tone of the film, which is mature and adult, yes, but also incredibly heavy. Kids likely won’t have much fun with this. Henry Cavill, however, does the very best he can, expanding on the profound decency and earnestness he brought to Superman in MAN OF STEEL; he’s a good guy trying to help others and do the right things, and Cavill really had me pulling for him in his conflict with Batman, and not just because the movie basically stacks the deck in the Dark Knight’s favor and tries desperately to get us on his side. As for Lex Luthor, you ask? Quite simply, Jesse Eisenberg is a terrible Lex Luthor. Like, flat-out awful. His is a spastic, peculiar performance that belongs in a completely different film. Alternating between being an irritatingly arrogant dweeb and a supposedly threatening mastermind, he is never convincing as a legitimate threat for either Superman or Batman. It also doesn’t help that he’s saddled with most of the screenplay’s worst bits of dialogue, and that his various evil schemes are totally irrational and half-baked, at best, and patently nonsensical, at worst (if someone can logically explain his ultimate goal in this movie, please do so!). He’s not even fun in a hammy, “so bad, it’s good” sort of way; he’s profoundly insufferable. What of the movie’s other problems? Chiefly, the plotting and narrative are a mess; characters’ actions are (repeatedly) unmotivated by anything other than the screenplay’s need for them to act in a certain way for rigidly predetermined story goals that don’t feel organic to the setup. The central “Batman versus Superman” conflict is a prime example of this - their eventual fight doesn’t feel properly motivated by anything that transpires in the story itself. It’s motivated by a movie studio wanting to pit the two characters together. As such, though it eventually makes for a visually neat (if too brief) fight scene, it lacks dramatic gravitas and emotional heft. Also, the middle hour of the movie is curiously inert, and this is compounded by some weird editing choices which pull us in a bunch of different directions. The final third ramps up the action, but also tries to cram in WAY too many elements, including some setup for the future JUSTICE LEAGUE film, which is supposedly coming our way at the end of 2017; this setup material is clunky, and it has the potential to be very confusing to audience members who might not be familiar with the extensive comics lore and mythology surrounding these characters. The appearances of certain individuals in the movie are so poorly defined that they’re likely to be baffling non sequiturs to many. Particularly disappointing is the musical score, credited to Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL (aka Tom Holkenborg). Zimmer’s motifs from his (quite good) MAN OF STEEL score are reprised for Superman, although with very little new development or variation; criminally, Superman’s grand and optimistic main theme (which was heard only at the very end of MAN OF STEEL) is simply nowhere to be found in this film’s score, which is a bizarre choice that leaves Superman characterized only by his more introspective and melancholic motifs. The action writing is occasionally impressive, but more often it’s just loud and cacophonous, with thunderous percussion beating us into submission. Many will no doubt praise the action stuff as “EPIC” and “EXTREME,” but with little variance in tone and intensity (it starts cranked up to 11 and pretty much stays there, while the non action stuff is mostly pitched at the level of a heavy dirge), it’s tough not to feel battered by it. So what’s good? I can’t get into bullet points of the individual moments and beats that are great (and there are a fair number), so what can I tell you? First, the movie is a world-class spectacle. ALL of the money is up on the screen, and presented through cinematography that is legitimately Oscar-worthy; the imagery is often flat-out gorgeous (if at times a little dreary, but your mileage may vary). The action, particularly in the first half, is full of intense and visceral stuff. Amy Adams does a TON with relatively little on the script page, and continues to make Lois Lane a proactive and interesting character. Wonder Woman, though not in the film much, gives things a fun spark of energy, and for all the hand-wringing about the casting of Gal Gadot, she’s absolutely fine and seems more than capable of headlining her own film (which is coming in the summer of 2017). Also, Jeremy Irons makes for a fantastic, slightly acerbic Alfred, and he has genuine chemistry with Affleck. You really get the sense that these two guys have been “in the trenches” together for a long time. Speaking of Ben Affleck, he is - without question - the clear standout of the film and pretty much worth the price of admission all on his own. His Batman is now the new standard by which the character should be judged, at least in visual and cinematic terms. The way the character moves and fights is simply thrilling, with exceptional choreography. Coming along with this, however, is a level of sadism and violence that won’t sit right with all fans of the character. Those who enjoy the more intense interpretations of the Dark Knight will likely find much to love in the way the character behaves, but those who prefer to view Batman as more openly heroic may have a tough time swallowing some of what transpires. Affleck also brings a keen intellect to the role, and the movie allows the character (once dubbed “The World’s Greatest Detective”) to be crafty and more than capable of puzzling through a various assortment of schemes and mysteries to an extent we’ve never seen from Batman/Bruce Wayne on film. Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne still gets the slight edge on that side of the equation, but Affleck’s Batman blows the doors off things. Ultimately, BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE is a step down from MAN OF STEEL, rather than a triumphant leap forward. And yet... minute by minute as the movie goes along, it’s never not compelling, and it’s frequently a highly entertaining ride. Big fans of Superman should prepare themselves for a less than transcendent handling of that particular character, but Batman fans will likely be excited by what the movie has to offer, even if it means sitting through confused and muddled storytelling to get to it.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is not the movie you think it is. Its marketing push has been specifically designed to elicit certain expectations on the part of the audience, and while these expectations may be - more or less - met by what the movie offers, it’s still not quite the film that has been sold. That is not to say the rather coy and mysterious ad campaign has misrepresented the film (because it really hasn’t), only that certain elements have been left deliberately ambiguous in ways that viewers may not find agreeable after they see the movie. But is the movie itself any good? Absolutely! 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is a tight and engaging thriller, one that presents interesting direction, well-drawn characters, and fine performances in the service of a consistently engrossing tale that works as a mystery on several levels. With a setup that owes a bit to MISERY, the movie follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a young woman who is rescued from a serious car accident by Howard (John Goodman), a “doomsday prepper” type living in an underground bunker; he explains that there has been a vast biological and/or chemical attack (perpetrated by malevolent parties unknown) that has left the outside world uninhabitable. Along with Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a young man also staying in the bunker, Michelle begins to question how much of Howard’s story is true, and whether or not he might be a far more unhinged and dangerous individual than she could have ever thought. The script plays with mystery as an idea; it gets you questioning what’s really going on, and whether or not Goodman’s character is truly nuts or is on the level… or whether those two things are actually mutually exclusive in the first place. The screenplay could almost be a case study in the ways you can mine effective drama out of human interactions in pressurized situations, and much of the movie’s (often incredibly effective) tension comes from the ways the three central characters either work together or find themselves at odds. By any objective measure, Mary Elizabeth Winstead should be a major star by this point, and her work in this film is further evidence of that. She creates a capable and resourceful character who is also in touch with her own vulnerability in ways that don’t ever make her seem weak, but rather fundamentally human and rounded. She’s fully relatable, and through body language - and her incredibly expressive eyes - Winstead is able to communicate far more about the character’s inner life and emotional state than she does through her dialogue. John Gallagher Jr. gets to play the most upbeat and affable of the three lead characters, and he’s fun, bringing just the right amount of small town, “aw shucks,” good guy charm to the role. This is enriched by the sense that the guy is just a little bit on the dim side, and perhaps doesn’t fully grasp the seriousness of his predicament until it’s almost too late to do anything about it. And then there’s John Goodman. He’s always had strong dramatic chops, but he’s REALLY playing against type this time out as he tears into a meaty and imposing role. He absolutely aces it, and instead of turning the character into a cartoon creation, Goodman plays the menacing undercurrents in a very real way. There’s no ham to be found, no scenery chewing, and Goodman keeps the character real-world threatening at every turn. There’s an equally sad quality to the man, too, which nicely compliments his more sinister angles. It is one of the best performances Goodman’s ever given. All of the technical specifications are terrific. Dan Trachtenberg’s direction keeps what is primarily one location visually compelling throughout, using framing and lighting to give each scene - and every nook and cranny of the bunker - a distinct feel; we are never bored of the surroundings. Aiding this are the minimalist production design (which heightens the closed-off, claustrophobic elements of the tale) and the detail-rich set decoration (which visually illustrates so much about Goodman’s character and background). The sound design is powerful and - at times - frightening, and Bear McCreary’s score is certifiably great; melodic without being lyrical, it is almost a quintessential mystery score. It keeps the audience tuned in to the unusual narrative turns with equal parts dark ambiance and motif writing; were it not for some cool, peculiar instrumentation, it feels like a score that could be been written in the early 1980s, and I mean that in the very best way. Now, it’s almost impossible to talk about 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE without addressing the issue of its relationship to 2008’s giant monster/”found footage” hit, CLOVERFIELD. Both films share the same production company (Bad Robot), same producer (J.J. Abrams), same distributor (Paramount Pictures), and same mysterious ad campaign approach that plays things very close to the vest in an effort to preserve surprises for the viewer. Plus, the presence of the word “Cloverfield,” by no means a common fixture among movie titles, suggests right up front that the two films share a connection of some sort. I’m not going to confirm or deny that in this review, but it has to be acknowledged that the movie is inviting you to make that connection because of the various factors mentioned; it’s inviting the audience to see it as a companion piece of sorts to the 2008 film, and the degree to which you think that’s justified by the finished product will perhaps greatly influence whether you deem 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE to be a success or a failure. There is also the issue of the way in which the movie is structured, and how that structure impacts its third act. It is in the third act that things almost fly off the rails, as we’re treated to a finale that feels like it was stitched onto the end of this film from a completely different story. It mostly works, but it’s a curveball that expands the scope and scale of the movie in ways that threaten to compromise the integrity of its contained first and second acts. I say all that as a preamble to this: I think it’s disappointing that neither the filmmakers - whose conscious creative and marketing choices have linked the two movies - nor the audience - whose expectations for the movie may not be totally fair - are really allowing the movie to exist on its own terms. Whatever links there may or may not be to CLOVERFIELD, 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is first and foremost a tight and engaging little TWILIGHT ZONEian thriller, and on that level alone, divorced from the baggage, it’s a tremendously entertaining time at the movies. As of this writing, it’s one of 2016’s best films. By Brett Blake THE WITCH is nearly a masterpiece. That’s not a word I use lightly, and I think it’s thrown around all too often in this age where many people are too quick to anoint a new movie the GREATEST(or WORST) OF ALL TIME. However, in this case, I’m comfortable embracing hyperbole; THE WITCH is an instant horror classic, a cerebral and enigmatic adult thriller that is beautifully constructed, shot, and acted, and which offers an intensity of mood and tone that is almost unparalleled in recent genre fare. The film chronicles a pious, devout family in 1630s New England who are cast out of their town - for reasons which remain mysterious - and are forced to settle in the wilderness. The family consists of the parents - William and Katherine (Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie) - and their five children: Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), young twins Jonas and Mercy, and newborn Samuel. When Samuel is abducted by a malevolent force in the woods, the family slowly begins to believe that witchcraft may be responsible. Writer/director Robert Eggers has crafted a masterful and frightening tale of the occult and familial breakdown. It is a classically shot and edited film, boasting gorgeously evocative and moody cinematography, and Eggers’ staging is precise, controlled, and effective. There is not a single wasted or superfluous moment to be found in here; everything is on screen for a reason, and just as a technical work, THE WITCH is superb cinema, the sort of film that begs you to just soak in its atmosphere. Eggers’ screenplay, though, is equally part of the reason the movie is so effective. The threat of something truly awful hangs over every interaction from the very start, and the script puts the fears of its characters in the foreground, fears that - in some ways - are still with us today: the fear of not being able to fully trust your own family, and the fear of something unknowably evil entering your life and causing extreme harm. The screenplay also doesn’t attempt to play coy - like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT did, for example - on the existence of the titular character. It’s no spoiler to say that she is introduced very early on in the story in such a shocking sequence that her presence then seeps into all of the movie’s dark corners and creates a palpable, pervasive feeling of dread. The movie’s four principal lead actors all deliver convincing and committed performances. The dialogue they are given by Eggers, surely period correct, is almost at a Shakespearean level of possible impenetrability, but the actors handle the difficult dialogue in ways that are always emotionally direct, which is key. Taylor-Joy, as the audience identification character, does a particularly great job of making us invest in her - and her family’s - situation. Pulling together the writing, photography, and acting is the absolutely phenomenal musical score by Mark Korven. It is a spectacular horror score, one filled with high, dissonant strings, effective moments of strange percussion, disturbing choral work, and an overall air of eeriness that perfectly complements the events transpiring on screen. One other point that needs to be hammered home is that THE WITCH is truly a frightening film, but perhaps not for the reasons one might think. It contains visceral, visual terrors, to be sure (including an early sequence that is one of the most disturbing and unnerving things I’ve seen in a long time), but where it is truly frightening is on an intellectual level. The movie - very wisely - understands that the fears we can conjure up in our minds are often far more potent and terrifying than anything that a film could ever explicitly show us. The movie is far more interested in putting you (the audience) in an uncomfortable headspace than it is in having things pop out of the screen to make you jolt. We, who supposedly live in a more enlightened age, look back upon the witchcraft scare in 17th century New England as a case of irrational superstition run amok, where zealotry and folklore combined to terrify the populace. That, in itself, is a frightening concept; the idea of people genuinely believing in the existence of hateful, disgusting old crones who consort with the Devil, who snatch babies into the night to be sacrificed, who brew sinister potions and cast malicious spells… that people could actually believe that was possible suggests a state of mind willing to go to great lengths to protect themselves against that perceived menace, and from that sprang a great amount of murder and atrocity. However, what makes THE WITCH a brilliant film is that it not only puts us fully inside that mindset of belief, and makes no apologies for it, but it also asks a question: what if the fears of these people are actually not unfounded in this case and the idea of witchcraft that terrifies them so much is actually real? Now a word of warning - THE WITCH is not packed with jump scares, it does not build to a bombastic, effects-heavy climax, and it is far more concerned with the psychological implications of what it’s showing you. All of that is to say that if you’re expecting some kind of roller coaster ride of a horror movie, this is not that. It is infinitely more complex, and it has genuine artistic and intellectual merit and ambition. It is a dark, dramatic period piece, first and foremost. So what keeps THE WITCH simply at near-masterpiece status instead of full-on masterpiece status? Perhaps only one additional sequence involving the titular character would have done it; short of that, I can think of nothing about the film that warrants a change. I was floored by the movie, and found it deeply troubling… though in the very best ways. It’s a primal, striking experience that is - as of this writing, anyway - the definitive cinematic depiction of witchcraft and those who live in fear of it. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|