What do we expect from a super hero movie these days? Marvel and Disney have pretty much set the tone for what someone should be looking for when watching an action adventure film. First and foremost, we need heroes. Heroes that we can get behind and cheer for when they win the battle. Heroes we mourn the loss of if they fall. We need action that has relevance. Something that will force us to the edge of our seats in anticipation of whether or not our hero will die, or save the day. We need a comedic element, too. Why? Because a lot of the crap that Heroes deal with is really dark and depressing. We don't go to movies to watch reality (well not in these kinds of movies at least). We typically go to movies to set aside our realities, to go on an adventure and forget about our bills and life's garbage we carry into the theater. Finally, we need the length of our step away from reality to be manageable. Not too brief, but certainly not longer than 120 min. We want to escape; but the real world has demands we must get back to. Movie-going is a counter balance, and we have every right to expect perfection.
Sadly, Director Zach Snyder didn't hit any of the points I listed above. He made a valiant attempt, but swung his gigantic C.G.I. club just a little too hard and blew right past the primary target. One of the things that most folks feared was "how well will Ben Affleck succeed playing the key role of the Dark Knight"? In a word, he "sucked". I'm not a hater of Ben Affleck. I truly believe he is a quality actor in many respects. His work in "Good Will Hunting" was phenomenal, and his comedic interpretation in "Dogma" was very well received. But if there's one thing we've learned about Ben, it's that he doesn't portray the dark and brooding superhero very well. He comes off as boring, wooden, and unfortunately, kind of stupid. (I don't blame Mr. Affleck for this since, in my opinion, an actor is only as strong as his director and source material). If you don't build on a solid foundation, you're doomed to fail from the start. What I saw in this movie was no deeper than what I saw in Daredevil back in the early 2000's. He doesn't give me a hero to cheer for. His physicality feels like it was choreographed, rather than a natural extension of his anger and inner turmoil. I studied martial arts for many years, and you get an eye for people who know what they're doing and people who were told what to do. Ben looked better in "Batman V Superman", but he still appears lost in the role; a superhero who is rather rusty, who needs a dose of youth and skill. You know you've failed as an action star when Hayden Christensen wields a lightsaber with more conviction than you can while smashing bad guys in the face.
Where Ben may have failed as the perfect Batman, Zach Snyder went way off the map as the right man for the directing job. It's clear that Mr. Snyder is a lover of comic books, having overseen such ventures as "300", "300: Rise of an Empire", "Watchmen" and "Man of Steel". However, your average Fan Boy (into which category Snyder falls) should stick to watching and critiquing comic book films and not interpreting them for the big screen.
Zach Snyder's style of direction is incredibly disorienting. Not only does he bludgeon moviegoers with C.G.I., sound, and frenetic camera shots, he also has no sense of cohesion when creating a film. He abruptly switches gears transitioning from one scene to another without any lead-in, which understandably makes the watcher misunderstand relevance. Whether you're an avid comic book afficionado or never read a comic book before in your life, you will recognize the poor result Snyder produced by attempting to mix genres. My wife is not an avid reader of comic books, and she was asking me at multiple points in this film what certain things meant, or what was the relevance to the story. This is no way to engage a wide audience with a group of characters and hope to garner their empathy. I counted about four different comic book stories going on in this film simultaneously, (stories an avid Fan Boy will recognize) ranging from 'The Death of Superman' to 'The Killing Joke', segueing to 'Injust Gods Among Us' and, finally, 'The Dark Knight Returns'. All four stories were amazing singularly when they went to print. Instead, Zach Snyder, Chris Terrio, and David S. Goyer created a mutated chimera of four overlapped shorts. The result is insensible to a Fan Boy and a confusing enigma to a comic book layman.
Beyond the obvious issues listed above, my biggest gripe with this film would have to be the run time. Two hours, thirty-one freaking minutes of Batman pissing about Superman. It's ludicrous to think that you require this much time to tell a story so uncomplicated. Batman hates Superman for destroying Metropolis. Superman hates Batman because he thinks his vigilante justice is out of control. They come together and realize they're both over the line and need to work together. Their shared goal becomes a heroic collaboration that saves the day and the city. The nearly three hours of my life I lost while the heroes learned the truth about teamwork could have been resolved in an hour while perusing a John Maxwell DVD on leadership. Unfortunately, when released on DVD, Snyder plans a directors cut that is rated R, and has a 191 minute run time. That is an asinine waste and should never be allowed to happen. Despite this, people will buy it, watch it, and talk about how much they liked it. Then Hollywood will think they 'done good' and will continue to produce more horrific crap like "Batman versus Superman".
WHEW!!! Ok now that I've gotten all that off my chest...what did I like about this film? It's not what I liked, it's what I
loved! Henry Cavil is, by far, the epitome of how Superman should be portrayed. Not only does he throw himself into the role physically (if you haven't seen him, he's the size of a trailer), but his presence on screen is exactly what you expect from Superman. He
looks like a man that can crush your skull between his index finger and thumb. Yet, his eyes and voice convey the inner struggle of holding back; a superhero maintaining control of his inhuman power because he knows he lives in a world of paper people. He makes you care about him like you would a friend who is always struggling to fit in. Even the brief five-minute interaction between Henry Cavil and Amy Adams made me care more about their love for each other than any emotion Ben Affleck had to offer through the entire film. Cavil's Superman was the saving grace of the movie. He is a joy to behold and will never become jaded to the repeat watcher.
In conclusion, I suggest, Dear Reader, you not waste your time or dinero seeing "Batman V Superman". I'm sure there will be, (as is a critics nemesis), those that disagree with me; some will find great enjoyment in the film, but I doubt it will be many. If you're looking for a film that has really nice visual effects, sound FX that you will feel rattling around inside your head and chest, Henry Cavil without a shirt, Ben Affleck without a shirt, and,
Oh!, Amy Adams without a shirt, then there's your rationale for a casual afternoon spent in the dark of a theater. But, if you're looking for a story that makes you care about the characters, the state of the planet in which these characters live, a deep and meaningful plot that makes you crave more as the credits roll, then I suggest not spending your money or your time. That said, I want to clarify something for the purpose of perspective.
I am a lover of bad film!
I adore "Tango and Cash". I found "The Punisher" (the one with Thomas Jane, not Dolph Lundgren) to be a compelling movie that deserved a re-watch. I even enjoyed "Daredevil", the aforementioned Ben Affleck superhero film (mostly because the film was a mockery of the character and felt more like a comedy than an action adventure). That being said, when my wife asked, as we drove away from the theater, "Did you like it?", without a second thought in my head and with a complete loss for any verbal eloquence, I replied, "No, it was very bad!"
