Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

“ Ding dong, the god is dead.”

 I'm struggling to think of any film I've ever seen that's worse than this two and a half hours of empty, cynical, pointless drivel. The only consolation is that I have this blog and at least I get to put thid film over my knee and give it a sound spanking. I pity those who had to see this film without such an outlet.

So why so execrably awful? Well, there’s the obvious things which have often been pointed out- unlike Marvel, who carefully nurtured all the main characters in their individual films before bringing them all together in The Avengers, DC saw fit to follow the flawed but ok Man of Steel with this- a continuity-heavy crossover with a Batman we haven’t properly met, no soul and a music video sensibility of scene following scene at a bewildering pace without slowing down so we can get to know and care about the characters.

Then there’s the direction from alleged pervert Zack Snyder- technically well done, competent, but devoid of any individual style or personality. But worse than any of this is the message of the film. We expect Hotham, and the world of the Batman, to have a certain darkness, although branding people is a bit much. Yes, it’s nice to have an older, veteran, perhaps cynical Batman from the start. But Superman should be a contrast yet he’s depicted as a self-doubting throwback to less cynical times, a throwback to liberal times who is stranded in that godawful year 2016. But that’s lazy; the character of Dioetman is essentially the optimistic creation of two idealistic Jewish youngsters in the far darker days of 1938. The character of Superman has seen off much bigger bastards than Trump and Brexit and I hate the implication that morality and liberalism are outmoded values in these right wing, nativist days- and yes, those placards held by the anti-Superman protesters outside Congress are very anti-immigrant- where the simple fact is that we liberals can, and will, smash their stupid faces in. To suggest otherwise is not only to misunderstand and disrespect the character of Superman but send a very cynical political message that nothing matters and there’s no point. “No one stays good in this world”, says Superman.

So, yeah, I hate what this film is saying. But that’s not all; it’s over-complicated, confusing fanwank where all the attempts to make you sympathise with the characters fail both because of the clinical style and the fact that we’ve yet to get to know these characters- the only character here who is actually likeable is Laurence Fishburne’s delightfully quotable Perry White. Oh, and Luthor. I love Jesse Eisenberg’s witty, fast-talking Luthor, an eccentric Nietzchean, er, “superman”. But the film is full of good actors who are either woefully miscast- Jeremy Irons and, yes, Ben Affleck- or playing shallow, badly written characters. It’s a terrible script, a terrible film and a terrible basis for a cinematic universe. Even Justice League is not quite so bad as this.

Man of Steel (2013)

"What are you smiling about, Captain?"

"Nothing, Sir. I just think he's kind of hot."

Usually I'd write a review based on the general premise of the film in question being good, bad, or indifferent. That's a rather challenging thing to do here. I mean, yes, ok, the film is good. It works. It's a solid start to the DC universe. But there are flaws, real flaws. The film gets away with it, in no small measure because of a solid script by the ever-dependable David S. Goyer and, interestingly, Christopher Nolan and the inspired casting of (thankfully moustache-free) Henry Cavill. But...

Here's the thing. Zack Snyder is technically a superb director. The whole thing is well shot in the extreme, even if it's CGI'd to death. It looks amazing. But it all feels (Russell Crowe as Jor-El aside, oddly) not quite persnal enough. There's just enough charm to get away with, but no more. And the direction: yes, it's clever. But at the expense of the storytelling- not enough to damage the film, but I'd say Snyder needed to watch it if not for the fact that #MeToo seems to make any such advice irrelevant.

There's a lot to praise, though. Traditionally dull Krypton is given CGI alien beasts of burden, an internal politics and a genetically caste-based culture against which Kal-El's birth is a rebellion in the name of freedom. I like that. I also like the characterisation of Zod here; he isn't a moustache-twirling baddie but a general, with his fanatical followers, who only wants to save Krypton. At the expense of our little human species, naturaally.

Lois Lane is presented well here, as a tenacious journalist who figures out who Clark is early on, saving us an awful lot of tiresomeness. Perry White is a bit more nuanced. Jimmy Olsen, er, isn't in the film. But it's a well-done and thoughtful approach to Superman's origins and the ideal first film for the new DC Cinematic Universe. They need to run  with it, so what next. Batman? The Dark Knight? No, those are both taken. So how about Batman: The Dark Knight? Yes. Colons are good. And the next film is in no way going to be a disaster. Right?

Justice League (2017)

“What are your superpowers again?”

“I’m rich.”

 I'd intended to start this blog with a quip about that notorious moustache. After all, I mentioned it to Mrs Llamastrangler and she was amused to find the CGI on Henry Cavill’s upper lip so very obvious. But sadly I can’t continue along those lines as this film is an utter mess. It’s a turf, a stinker, a mind-bogglingly bad film. What went wrong?

D.C. can make good films. I enjoyed Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. But they simply have no Kevin Fiege. There no quality control, no consistency of tone, no building up the characters in their individual films first. So we get these big epic films about iterations we don’t really know of characters who have barely been introduced to us in this version of the D.C. Universe. The pacing is atrocious and the script is lacking in sparkle. And the odd wittty line, presumably late additions by Joss Whedon after Zack Snyder was sacked, just jars with the po-faced and dull tone. This is a film about superheroes that fails to be fun. That’s quite an achievement.

Oh, some of the cast are good. Henry Cavill is well cast, and Ezra Miller is an inspired choice as an awkward young Flash. But Ben Affleck is both bad and wrong as Batman, Jeremy Irons is good but miscast as Alfred, and Ciaran Hinds gives us a generic and forgettable villain. And Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, incredibly, gets most of the best lines. And the amount of exposition just beggars belief. And don’t get me started on the sheer quantity of poor CGI.

This is, hands down, the worst superhero film I’ve ever seen.

Watchmen (2009)

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Never have I been so favourably surprised by a film. Yes, Alan Moore refused to be associated with it for the usual (understandable) reasons and yes, Watchmen is as much about its form as its content, and form doesn't translate to other media. But that doesn't make it unfilmable, and I'd say this is the best possible cinematic version of Watchmen. The characters, the plot, the aesthetic- barring a major departure for the ending of the film it's an extremely faithful adaptation.

The cast, none of whom are huge stars, are perfect with the exception of Matthew  Goode, whose American accent is deeply unconvincing- and I'm a Brit. Jackie Earle Haley, so rubbish as Freddy Krueger in the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, is a revelation as Rorschach, seemingly born to play the role.

I won't comment on the plot other than to urge people to read the original, but the film made me ponder the contrast between the Comedian and Rorschach, both dangerous Far Right borderline Nazis but very different. Not only is the Comedian a completely amoral bastard but we're further alienated from him by the fact that his place in the narrative is to be seen and understood through other characters, not on his own terms: we see his exterior actions, and subjective versions at that. It's quite a contrast from the way we are made privy, through the device of the diary, to Rirschach's interior monologue. Both are psychopaths but we are made privy to Rorschach's poor and unpleasant upbringing, while his misogyny and distrust of sex strongly imply that he is, definitely unlike Edward Blake, a virgin. And yet... both are equally reactionary and equally psychopathic. So why does Moore allow us to, if not like Rorschach, feel empathy for him, and accept him in the narrative space of the hero? I suspect it's because of the gulf in terms of social class and status between the two.

On a more prosaic note, the shifting patterns on Rorschach's face look amazing. As does the whole film, brilliantly realising Dave Gibbon's visual aesthetic. It doesn't quite have the depth of the original- that would be unfair to expect-but there's still so much to say about authoritarianism, about misogyny, about nuclear weapons, about poverty, about how superheroes in real life would be Nietzchean Supermen, not a liberal wish fulfilment figure dreamed up by two Jewish creators in the year of Kristallnacht, sadly.

This is easily the best superhero film I've ever seen, but then, the source material is sublime.