Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

We have arrived at a titular moment in comic book mythos; two of the most well-known superheroes have been pitted against one another in the gladiator match to end all gladiator matches. It's a double billing sure to fill many multiplex seats this weekend, as the Caped Crusader goes up against the Man of Steel. And the biggest question on everyone's minds will be, "Why are they fighting?"

Good question. I guess it's up to you whether the movie satisfactorily answers that. For Batman's part (Ben Affleck), the motivations seem to make sense. The opening credits take place over a recreation of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, an origin story as familiar as Krypton's destruction or Peter Parker's spider bite. This is followed by a very effective scene set at the climax of 2013's bombastic Man of Steel, except this time we get a ground-level perspective as Bruce Wayne races into the carnage to save whoever he can. Witnessing first-hand the kind of destruction Superman (Henry Cavil) is capable of, Wayne grows fearful of a power that cannot be contained and becomes obsessed with finding a way to stop him, should Superman's loyalties ever be in question (to quote Wayne at one point: "If there is even a 1% chance he is evil, we must take that as absolute," which seems rather extreme to me).

Superman's motivations, on the other hand, are a little vaguer and harder to describe without being spoilery. Suffice to say, he is forced into it because he has no other choice, although I find it hard to believe he couldn't foil the evil plot forcing him into this battle royale. For his part, Superman (or Clark Kent) spends most of the movie dealing with the public's skeptic eye of his role in the world. Now that a God exists, can he be trusted? And though he does a lot of good, Superman's few missteps are enough to hold congressional hearings prosecuting him for the destruction he is partially responsible for.

I've been dancing around a succinct plot summary and that is because there really is none to give. The movie is so overstuffed with plots that it's hard to know where to begin. How about Lois Lane's (Amy Adams) quest to identify a bullet never before developed by arms dealers? Or Lex Luthor's (Jesse Eisenberg) quest to import kryptonite to build a weapon to make sure Superman doesn't go unchecked? Or the senator (Holly Hunter) leading the hearings against Superman? Or Clark Kent's criticism of Batman's vigilante justice? Or Batman's hunt for an arms dealer known as the White Portuguese?

Scripted by David S. Goyer (who co-wrote The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel) and Chris Terrio (writer of Argo), and directed by Zack Snyder, the movie never gracefully moves between all of these plot points. There are multiple times dream sequences are employed, and the audience isn't aware of it until things start getting really weird. That's a fine writing trick, but three times is just lazy and I got a little tired of being deceived. Other scenes just start on a medium shot of a character, no establishing shots of where we are, and we are launched into dialogue. In fact, the pace of the first 90 minutes is more or less like this, with the audience having to pay rapt attention or else miss the whole point of the scene.

This is nothing new with Goyer's writing style. But at least with Christopher Nolan directing, you felt like you could follow the chaos of Goyer's structure. Snyder, on the other hand, is not good with subtlety, and when Lex Luthor sneaks a dead body onto an alien spaceship, I couldn't figure out until 30 minute later where the spaceship even was or how he got there. I fancy myself fairly attentive, and I think the lack of establishing shots lends itself to the confusion.

Very few things in this movie are established. It seems like this is catered for the comic book lovers that can fill in the blanks with everything they know, but for plebeians like myself, they just raised more questions. Gotham and Metropolis apparently share a harbor, but this has never been established in any movies, and is barely established here. Bruce Wayne's family manor is a burned wreckage, but why? Batman at one point looks at a Robin costume with a spray painted message reading "Haha, Joke's on you bats!" I guess this refers to an incident where Joker killed Robin, but we've never seen that on film, and it lands with little impact here.

I'm fine with easter eggs being thrown into these movies that are for the fans, and that I won't get. But the things I mentioned above are at least somewhat crucial to the central conflict, at least in terms of motivating our characters. There's a great sentiment that when movies are adapted from books, some things that are unclear will make sense when you read the book. That's great, except a work of art should stand on its own and provide the audience with the context they deserve. Unless the express intent of the artist is for you to read the book as well, it's just sloppy filmmaking.

Part of this comes from DC/Warner Bros.' mad rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man (2008) and the other Phase One movies all effectively set-up the major players, culminating in the juggernaut The Avengers (2012), and suddenly DC realized they needed to get Justice League off the ground, stat. But who cares? There are teasers of the other members in this film, very lazily shoehorned in before the final battle, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an epic entrance in the climax. But I can't help but feel if DC had proceeded more like Marvel in building up to this Batman v Superman title it would have felt more rewarding. Man of Steel, for all its issues, at least set-up Superman and his place in the universe. I guess the issue was if you start with the Superman movie, you can't really make another one without addressing him since the presence of Alien Jesus can't be ignored.

Not to mention Batman's whole mantra is just thrown out the window. Famously, Batman's one rule that keeps him from being a criminal is he does not kill. It's his one moral code that keeps him sane. Yet this Batman kills indiscriminately, firing guns at bad guys and mowing down more henchmen than James Bond. I suppose the burned down Wayne Manor and Robin suit help explain this? Or is Snyder's version just a homicidal maniac?

The things is, I didn't hate this movie. I was actually entertained. I liked it more than Snyder's Man of Steel, and didn't think it was as awful as the critics made it out to be. But I obviously still have problems with it, the biggest of which is the serious tone. Nolan handled Batman in a serious manner and grounded him in a reality that was believable. These movies want to do the same thing, but there are so many silly sci-fi elements that I wish it would just embrace the honestly campy nature of Batman and Superman fighting. The fight itself is well done, and actually pretty funny. Batman of course employs Kryptonite to make the match more even, but there are moments of comedy when the Kryptonite wears off and Batman's punches land on Superman's face with metallic thuds.

I should briefly talk about the performances. For all the crying over his casting, Affleck does a great job as Batman. Cavil and Adams are fine in their returning roles. Jeremy Irons is fantastic as Alfred, a fun new take on the usually subservient butler. Eisenberg is really the only misstep here, playing Lex Luthor with so many tics it's hard not to recall Robert Downey, Jr's famous speech in Tropic Thunder about over doing stuff like this.

SPOILERS!
Finally, the movie ends with a ballsy twist that would seem surprising if you don't know what Doomsday's presence in the movie means (he's the big slime monster that is the real foe in the end). But it's a twist that, like most of what happens, is meaningless. It's a lazy attempt to invest pathos into the end. But does anyone really believe that the new status quo at the end will stand? Because I don't. There's no way they will proceed. It's a twist that will be rendered as meaningless as the end of Wrath of Khan.
END SPOILERS!

The spectacle of this film is something to behold. It's a screen-pairing that nerds and casual fans alike have been waiting for for decades. But that's what I really wish we got; a pairing. A team-up. Sure Justice League is right around the corner. But that's going to add Aquaman and the Flash and Cyborg, and make the whole thing overstuffed. I wish we could have gotten Batman and Superman teaming up for the whole film, instead of being adversaries until near the end. But I guess Batman v Superman is a better poster than Batman & Superman.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Many people who flocked to see 10 Cloverfield Lane this weekend were probably expecting a pretty straightforward sequel to the 2008 January hit, a found footage move about a monster terrorizing Manhattan and the group of 20-somethings just trying to survive. Directed by Matt Reeves, that first Cloverfield was a masterstroke of viral marketing. The first trailer premiered before the first Transformers (2007) film, omitting the title completely from the trailer leaving audiences wondering what it was called, other than "Untitled J.J. Abrams Movie" (he serves as producer on both films).

So when two months ago a trailer was dropped announcing a sequel, and that sequel would be out in March, we got another example of some pretty ingenious marketing. I don't know if general audiences were clamoring for a Cloverfield follow-up, the promise of one suddenly popping up just around the corner was enticing enough to generate enough buzz to grab this movie a decent $24 million opening weekend. With an estimated $5 million production budget, that's not too shabby.

What audiences will get, instead, is a fairly well-directed thriller that only really ties in with the Cloverfield universe (if such a thing can be said) at the end. The film opens with Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving behind her life in New York and fiancee over an unheard argument. Driving for 100s of miles, she ends up in the country and gets into a car accident. When she wakes, she is handcuffed, attached to an IV, and her leg is set in a make-shift cast to deal with a sprain. She soon discovers she is prisoner to Howard (John Goodman). Or is she?

The movie does a lot of toying with the audiences emotions in terms of whether Howard is to be trusted. Michelle soon discovers she is in Howard's bunker, an underground living space with enough food to last years. There is another fellow there with a broken arm called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and Howard explains that a bomb has gone off and fallout has made the outsider world uninhabitable.

The question, naturally, becomes about whether Howard is telling the truth or not. He has a lot of crazy theories about what is happening; that Russia or Al-Qaeda or even aliens are attacking. And though he offers up a lot of proof, Michelle is never quite trusting of him and everything he tells her.

I won't really say much more about the movie's plot except that overall I was surprised by how effective this film was. There is a pervading sense of claustrophobia and terror throughout, and the movie does an excellent job of laying out the space of the bunker and making it feel familiar.

Directed by newcomer Dan Trachtenberg, the film is also extraordinarily suspenseful. An opening title card sequence announces the movie's presence with exciting sound design, and there is a dinner scene that slowly builds to an explosive climax. Really much of the movie is a bit of a slow burn, as some of what Howard says turns out to be real, while other things he says are not.

The film finally ties back into Clovefield at the end with a final 15-minutes that almost feel out of left field and unwelcome. If not for the name attached, the ending would probably be a completely surprising, out-of-nowhere twist. But because it has the name, it has certain duties to fill.

Which isn't a bad thing. Hell, I kind of like the notion of Cloverfield movies telling varying stories about the same incident from different individual stories. The first movie dealt with how a couple of Manhattanites deal with a monster attack, while this deals with one woman's struggle as she is held captive, or is rescued (take your pick), by a different kind of monster (I'm so insightful!).

Ultimately this a solid thriller. It's fairly predictable, but Goodman and Winstead are both great and the movie achieves a lot through primarily dialogue in a confined setting. It's a surprising film and one I actually recommend people check out. As long as you're not gearing yourself for 100% straight up Cloverfield, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see.