[Review] Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

With Man of Steel, it was clear that director Zack Snyder attempted to entrench the brightly iconic Superman with the Nolan-ized tone of Dark Knight, only to misfire on all levels. So what happens when yet another incarnation of Batman is thrown into the equation during the blockbuster that is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Well, the results aren't as great as you'd want them to be.

The opening scenes somewhat clumsily jump through several different countries and time frames, and in the process we revisit the explosive wreckage from the ending of Man of Steel. That's where we meet Bruce Wayne (aka Batman, played by Ben Affleck), who was caught amidst all those collapsing buildings. Flash forward 18 months later: Superman (Henry Cavill) is a highly divisive figure, blurring the lines between savior and criminal with prickly repercussions. Batman, a controversial vigilante himself, has a major beef with Superman. Meanwhile, the jittery Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg) is plotting some evil endeavors and conspiring to finally pit Batman and Superman directly against each other.

It's almost as if Snyder took a story about two of the most beloved comic book heroes and siphoned all the soul and intrigue out of it. Midway through, I thought to myself: Shouldn't this be more exciting? The film's structure is disjointed and clunky from the very beginning, flowing as smoothly as a mountain of jagged metal. The plot lacks a gripping coherency, and of course there's the obligatory shoehorns for the sequel. It always feels like you're watching a big long chunk of something, rather than a fully established unit. And the pieces of that chunk aren't always bad, but they don't really form or transition well with each other. The film alternates between dour and slightly thrilling. Some scenes land, while others spark questions of why they're even included. Some scenes drag, while others are rushed. Such a monumental occasion should possess more momentum and escalation than this. Is a bit of jubilance within a Superman and Batman movie too much to ask for?

Henry Cavill's Superman carries over the detached, cardboard blandness from Man of Steel. Which is a shame, because the guy showed some nice flair in last year's Man from U.N.C.L.E., and I wish more of that was demonstrated here. Ben Affleck caught a lot of flack when his Batman casting was initially announced, and the rage of comic book fans intensified even more when Jesse Eisenberg was cast as Lex Luthor. But ironically, these two are the most interesting aspects of the whole film. Affleck's performance is brooding and controlled, and he does a perfectly swell job in the face of haters, even though when we first witness Batman operating in his Batcave alongside his white-haired British butler (Jeremy Irons), it can't help but give off a "Here we go again..." vibe. I mean, The Dark Knight trilogy ended only a few years ago.

Then there's Eisenberg's unhinged, sociopathic turn as Lex Luthor. Eisenberg does this thing incredibly well. Sure, he's not the Lex Luthor who comic book enthusiasts wanted (he's more of a Joker B-side), but he certainly commands every scene that he's in and emerges as the highlight. The film also gains a boost when Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) joins the party, and it's at this very point when the script produces its first amusing lines of dialogue and slight shreds of humor. You get the impression that this sort of flavor should've been injected into the series from the get-go.

So, Batman v Superman does have its moments. And it isn't the abomination that the Twittersphere might cause you to believe. In fact, despite often being shrouded in darkness, the production design of this thing looks really stellar (for the most part). However, it's completely fair to say we want a more compelling story, tweaked characterizations, and something that isn't so coldly one-dimensional. The film contains a line from the city's senator that goes like: "The world has been so caught up with what Superman can do that no one has asked what he should do." Well, he should be involved in a movie that doesn't leave us so exhaustingly numb.

5.5/10

[Review] Knight of Cups

With his most recent run of Tree of Life, To the Wonder, and now Knight of Cups, Terrence Malick seems to be fully content with putting out glorified View-Master projects.

The film revolves around a Hollywood screenwriter (played by Christian Bale) and his escapades with various women, as they help him "find his place in the world." It's a loathsome point of view, especially within a setting that's already overly pretentious. There's hardly even any semblance of a coherent story here, and things have reached the point where the on-paper synopsis presents more detail than what the actual film conveys. It's the equivalent of someone having to explain their artwork to you because they're the only person who *gets* it. It also doesn't help that Knight of Cups is mostly dialogue free, except for some cryptic and disjointed voiceover narration.

To its credit, the film looks absolutely beautiful. Every single shot is gorgeous, perfectly framed, and filled with natural sunlight under evocative skies--Which makes it all the more frustrating that this thing is so narratively inept and frankly boring. The unconventional, fragmented editing is dressed as experimentalism, but this isn't pushing the medium into new places--it's robbing it of dimension, as well as emotion. And this makes it a painstakingly difficult two hours to sit through, and I got the impression that I could've just looked at a nice slideshow and saved a lot of time.

Knight of Cups is also a major waste of acting talent. Along with Christian Bale, the cast includes Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Antonio Banderas, Freida Pinto, Imogen Poots, and more. The actors and actresses stare blankly into the abyss most of duration, like they're not even sure what they should be doing, let alone know what's going on in the first place. This aspect makes all the performances incredibly bland, to the point of being maddening.

Apparently Malick's next film is called Weightless, and well, at least it's a good descriptor of his recent work.

3/10

[Review] 10 Cloverfield Lane

Lets' get this out of the way: Aside from its title, 10 Cloverfield Lane is almost a completely different beast from its "predecessor" Cloverfield. The mock-doc style and nauseating shaky cam is tossed out the window (thank goodness), and it takes place in a single confinement instead of an entire sky-scraping city. And what we have here is a tense horror/sci-fi thriller that stands on its own.

After suffering an accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up locked in the cellar of a nuclear bunker. Enter Howard (John Goodman), an avid Doomsday prepper. He informs Michelle that there was an "attack" outside, the air isn't safe, and that he saved her life. But of course, Michelle (and we as the audience) can't be too sure about what's really going on yet. There's also another dude in the bunker--the modest but overly talkative Emmett (John Gallagher Jr., Short Term 12).

Props to the premise for immediately sparking a great amount of intrigue and sustaining it for a good length of time. The source of fear brews from the outside and within. If the apocalypse is indeed in-play, then what caused it and what's happening to the world? As far as we know, chemical warfare, zombies, aliens, and good old-fashioned monsters are all on the table. If the apocalypse is a lie, then Michelle is being held hostage by a creepy dude, not unlike Brie Larson's situation in the recent Oscar-contender Room. And even if Howard is correct about the apocalypse, he still can't be trusted. There's conflict everywhere, and the tension is incredibly thick in an already claustrophobic space.

Winstead and Goodman put on a couple of stellar performances, and the characterizations definitely make things interesting. Michelle is extremely resourceful given the circumstances (MacGyver would be envious), and very keen on attempting to unravel Howard's secrets. Goodman is scary good as Howard. He's all at once intimidating, insecure, possibly crazy, a wise survivalist, and even caring and highly sentimental at times. But just when it looks like these people might become a happy family, there's a subtle line of dialogue or a visual hint that sets the uneasiness back on high alert.

I've seen and heard many complaints about the film's last 10 minutes or so. Personally, I was okay with the choice, but I can't go much further into it. Can you tell that I'm trying not to give too much away?

8/10

[Review] The Wave (Bolgen)

If you want to see a solid alternative to the typical Hollywood natural disaster flick, look no further than Norway's The Wave. (Not that I have anything against last year's Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson epic, San Andreas.)

Kristian (Kristoffer Joner) & Idun (Ane Dahl Torp), along with their two kids, are a perfectly happy family living in a small Norwegian village located near a set of mountains. Kristian, a geologist, is beginning to notice some alarming signs of an impending shake-up. And he isn't wrong. The serene and picturesque landscape, as well as the family's well-being are upended when a massive rockslide tumbles into a fjord and causes a powerful flood.

The story's beginning stalls for a great while in order to build quiet dread and anticipation. In fact, the main event doesn't hit until after 45 minutes in. But once it hits, it really hits, and the film launches into emergency chaos. It's safe to say that this is an intense experience. Everything is so crisply shot, and the camera's focus makes sure to emphasize the jarring shift from how a scenic destination can turn into a destructive danger zone within minutes.

The film demonstrates impressive technical prowess along the way, from the visual effects, to the direction within large amounts of water, and the sound design which often creates an effect of being submerged underwater. Some scenes are even reminiscent of James Cameron's Titanic. And the money shot of the approaching colossal wave is enough to make your heart pound out of your chest.

The Wave cuts back on any cheesy melodrama, it takes place in the now (instead of decades into the future), and it's steeped in treacherous realism--which all bodes well for a sudden catastrophe.

7/10

[Review] Triple 9

Woody Harrelson, Casey Affleck, Anthony Mackie, Norman Reedus, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kate Winslet, Aaron Paul, and Michael K. Williams is an amazing ensemble cast for a gritty crime thriller. So the big question arises: Is the rest of the film as serviceable?

Set in a grim underbelly-like Atlanta where guns and drugs seem to grow from the cracks of the pavement, Triple 9's intricately detailed premise involves a lot of different parts and key players, so I'll just give you the gist of it: A group of thieves and dirty cops conspire to pull off a dangerously high stakes heist. And of course, it doesn't quite go as planned. If that isn't rough enough, the crew is also entangled with the Russian mafia, which is never a good thing.

Director John Hillcoat, who has a couple of great titles to his name (The Proposition, The Road), finds himself in messier and not-so-subtle territory here. So you kind of just have to sit back and submit yourself to the non-stop pulp, chaotic setpieces, and the ugliness of it all. The problem is that the film threatens to implode, and you might become desensitized to everything taking place on screen, as it all sort of becomes a big murky blur.

There's only so many Mexican gangbangers, stock Russian Mob types, informant prostitutes, greasy bankrobbers, and Alonzo Harris-es (Denzel Washington's character in Training Day) that the first 30 minutes of a movie can throw at you before you feel like you might get hit with a kitchen sink. And the cast--while all great--don't get a whole lot of opportunity to differentiate from each other. It's a major case of character overload. Still, the film packs some tense thrills as long as you can get a grip on who is who and what is transpiring, although this leads me to believe that this thing probably could've fared much better as a killer TV series on a Netflix platform or something.

Triple 9 is far from the top tier of this genre, but if you're a hardcore fan of this stuff either way, you probably won't be too disappointed.

6.5/10