'Batman v Superman' gets almost everything wrong

Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice." Image courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures.

To lift a line from Commissioner Gordon, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is not the Batman and Superman film we need, nor is it really the one we deserve either. It represents what happens when a studio takes the Marvel formula (and this film is a vital cog in a Marvel rip off) and doesn’t understand how those pieces fit together to form a cohesive movie. “Dawn of Justice” strips away the qualities that have made the eponymous heroes so memorable, instead opting to turn these characters into hyper violent caricatures of themselves. “Dawn of Justice” fails its audience on almost every level, delivering a soulless flick directed by a man with nary a clue as to what to do with the characters he’s created.

That man is Zack Snyder, who has somehow found himself in charge of DC Comics’ three pivotal characters despite a legacy of mediocrity and hypocrisy as a director. “Dawn of Justice” is not his finest hour, a film with no rhythm and far too many little subplots chucked in despite a central plot that nowhere near justifies two and a half hours in theater. It’s clear Snyder and film writers David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio are setting up the impending “Justice League” franchise throughout “Dawn of Justice,” which is strange considering having Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in the same movie already accomplishes that feat.

The failures of “Dawn of Justice” as a film begin with those three, from the aforementioned pacing problems to some wonky dialogue to unimpressive special effects to burdensome dream sequences thrown in to make the film feel deep. The fact these dream sequences add little to the film besides precious minutes of our lives is not a factor Snyder, Goyer and Terrio appeared to consider. “Dawn of Justice” is also littered with plot holes and silly contrivances obvious enough to notice and mock while watching the film. Admittedly, those holes did offer the highest level of entertainment this film has to offer.

And then there’s the casting of the charmless Henry Cavill and the Ben Affleckian Ben Affleck as Superman and Batman, respectively. Cavill, who first donned the blue suit for “Dawn of Justice’s” precursor “Man of Steel,” lacks the inherent decency brought to the role by Christopher Reeve that provides some humility to what is otherwise a god. Without humility, you’re left with a cipher, a bland being whose most noteworthy features are a garish costume, laser beams, and the glasses he wears as a disguise. Affleck doesn’t offer much in the way of a performance as either Bruce Wayne or Batman, which is to be expected for the Affleck sibling better served behind the camera than in front.

Cavill and Affleck are so solemn in their performances it makes Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor even more flamboyant than expected. The Facebook founder appears to belong in a very different movie, taking Gene Hackman’s performance from the first two “Superman” flicks and adding even more scenery chewing to go along with very obvious hints at some level of autism. Everyone else is OK, with Holly Hunter underused as Senator Finch; Amy Adams stuck playing damsel in distress as Lois Lane; Jeremy Irons butles as Bruce Wayne’s loyal butler Alfred; Diane Lane worries as Martha Kent; and Gal Gadot doesn’t do a lot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, but just having Wonder Woman around is the best part of “Dawn of Justice.”

The cinematic issues for “Dawn of Justice” though are trumped by the decisions Snyder and his wrecking crew make to the characters themselves. It starts with the opening sequence that shows robber Joe Chill holding up Bruce, Thomas and Martha Wayne. Most versions have Thomas Wayne attempting to shield his family and negotiate with Chill, who shoots him in cold blood before murdering Martha as she screams. Snyder has Thomas Wayne attempt to attack Chill, who shoots Bruce's father out of self defense, then shoots Martha Wayne somewhat accidentally after she attacks him. The difference is minor on the surface, but it effectively inspires the more grotesque acts Affleck's Batman commits in this version and diminishes The Dark Knight's skills as a negotiator, as a hero who tries to avoid a violent confrontation when he can.

This version spreads throughout “Dawn of Justice,” with Batman wantonly murdering, shooting and even branding people out of cruelty. Batman as a character has very clear guiding principles developed not just through the death of his parents, but the strong influence of Alfred as a father figure and a nuanced understanding of justice rooted in his intellectualism. Snyder's version is a dolt who leaves the non-punching work to Alfred and gets duped into taking on a god. Then again, Superman isn't exactly all that brilliant either, and it's implied heavily that he is willing to murder if he deems it necessary. Like Batman, that contrasts greatly from a character who avoids acts of gratuitous violence when he can because he can at least empathize with humanity at some level and understands the horror he's capable of inflicting.

The psychopathic versions of the eponymous heroes comes to a head in an anticlimactic final act highlighted solely by the presence of Gadot's Wonder Woman. The big twist in the film is based on a very famous comic from the 90s featuring an iconic moment that Snyder, of course, fails to grasp. He misses the point of the exercise, the true danger of the villain the heroes battle against and the exhaustion the combatants face at that final draw. It's the biggest misstep in a film that spends 151 minutes going in the wrong direction.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 151 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: All of those people who've flocked to see “Avengers” movies in recent years, as well as Batman and Superman fans. In other words, everyone.

Take the whole family?: A lot of people die in this film, so I really wouldn't recommend this thing for kids. You'll take them anyway though, because this is a film with Batman and Superman.

Theater or Netflix?: Matinee if you really, really must.

Where does Ben Affleck rank as a Batman?: It really depends on how forgiving you are about George Clooney – he's tolerable given the circumstances in my view – but I would put Affleck at the bottom of the Batman hierarchy. My list goes Kevin Conroy (he voiced Batman in multiple TV series and video games), Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, Adam West, Val Kilmer, Clooney, Affleck.

Watch this instead?: The first two “Superman” films are still quite good, as are “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight,” and Tim Burton's first “Batman” flick. For anyone who wants to dive a little deeper, find episodes of “Batman: The Animated Series” from the 1990s and the “Justice League” franchise that ran on Cartoon Network last decade.

'Allegiant' makes no sense

Theo James and Shailene Woodley are set to kiss at an inopportune moment in "Allegiant." Image courtesy Lionsgate.

It’s clear the filmmakers behind “Allegiant,” the newest entry in the “Divergent” series, had a very specific audience in mind when they opted to make this film. The actors are very pretty, the dialogue is very simplistic, the plot is very straightforward, and the plot holes are big enough for a tank to drive through. So, perhaps but hopefully perhaps not, this film might work for the target audience, but anyone outside of that core demographic is in for a very bumpy ride.

“Allegiant” picks up right after the end of its predecessor “Insurgent,” which came out in 2015. The gate that separated Chicago from the rest of the world has opened, but new leader Evelyn (Naomi Watts, one of many people far too good for this film) prevents anyone from leaving. Instead, she hosts a series of trials to execute the enforcers who served under the previous regime. Not happy with how things are going, series protagonist/The Special Tris (Shailene Woodley) recruits her boyfriend Four (Theo James, aka diet Paul Walker) and a few friends from the other two films in the series (Miles Teller, Ansel Elgort and Zoë Kravitz) to see exactly what life is like on the other side of the fence and to see if the grass is indeed greener.

What they discover is a futuristic society (or one even more so than the future they exist in) headed by David (Jeff Daniels), a researcher who uses Chicago as a sort of experiment to see if humanity can rid itself of the defective character traits that define life in the Windy City. Woodley, as the chosen one, is the key to his research, and he recruits her to meet up with a special council to save the denizens of her home town. Things aren't exactly going swimmingly there though; Octavia Spencer's Johanna is waging a war against Watts for control of the city to restore the factions Woodley and friends fought to destroy, and things are getting out of hand fast. Daniels' David could be the last hope to prevent a civil war, or are his motives could be far more nefarious than Woodley suspects (yes, they are). Regardless, shenanigans encompassing ships, angst, memory erasing, kidnapping, more angst, flying hockey pucks, and a hint more angst for the young stars ensue. –

“Allegiant’s” flaws are legion. It’s generally poorly acted – the high profile names are not invested in this endeavor – and impressively hideous aesthetically with some god awful CGI, and even features dialogue that’s often redundant and definitely overly simplistic even for a film aimed at tweens. The hallmark though are the plot holes, the gaps in logic that keep cropping up because the team of writers enlisted to write this travesty don’t know what to do with their characters. To use an old Roger Ebert concept, the entirety of “Allegiant's” plot machinations is dependent on people acting dumb and, in several cases, against their own or anyone else's interest. Daniels' David, who (spoiler) becomes the film's big bad, can undermine the entire counter operation run by Woodley's Tris and her friends without leaving his office. Or, at least, he should be able to enact his master plan with the flip of a switch from his couch in his boxers while watching “RuPaul's Drag Race.” But he doesn't, and he never designs his grand experiment to be able to do enact his plan, because “Allegiant” makes little to no sense as a concept or as a film.

Yet, somehow, this is actually worse than “Insurgent.” At least that one had a solid grip on the relationship between Woodley's Tris and the appropriately handsome James, who work effectively as partners (admittedly a strength of the series). This time, for some reason, the writers have James' Four pull an Aidan and devolve into a misogynistic chazz to make Woodley’s Tris feel bad. There's also no good reason why the writers opt to make Watts' Evelyn as erratic as she is; it's as if they can't decide if they should make her Eleanor Iselin, Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini, or some strange hybrid of the three.

Little about “Allegiant” makes any sense. Even the full title listed at IMDB “The Divergent Series: Allegiant – Part 1” is undercut by the name of the next film in the franchise, “Ascendant,” meaning “Allegiant” doesn't technically have a part two. Sadly, there is still at least one more film left to go in this franchise, and if it follows the pattern set by the last two “Divergent” films, it's not going to end well for anyone.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 121 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Fans of the book series and people interested in less well-developed “Hunger Games” knockoffs.

Take the whole family?: For a series targeted at tweens, there is a whole lot of shooting and murdering going on. In other words, not so much for the little ones.

Theater or Netflix?: Stay away if you can.

Is there anything to recommend about this movie?: Miles Teller is the series MVP, often serving as an audience surrogate to point out how stupid these films are. Something that always tickles me about these films is the use of banal first names to identify the villains. The series tries very hard to make their villains frightening, but names like David, Evelyn and Jeanine just aren’t intimidating.

Watch this instead?: “Gattaca” addressed all of the moral implications raised in “Allegiant” with a deft touch and a hint of creepiness that makes it worth seeking out.

Three people alone in a bunker waiting for the world to end

John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in "10 Cloverfield Lane." Image courtesy Paramount Pictures.

J. J. Abrams has a penchant for shrouding his work with mystery, selling the intrigue of an idea instead of the actual film. It’s a fun gimmick too, with the ad campaigns providing just enough information to tantalize but not enough to describe what the film is actually about. The question, though, is whether or not these projects (and they feel more like projects than films) are good enough to justify the secrecy. In the case of “10 Cloverfield Lane” – a film which bears Abrams’ name as a producer – the answer is a resounding no.

Even if the big twist (or twists?) are asinine at best, I’ll still be a good sport and limit the plot outline to the bare essentials. “10 Cloverfield Lane” is the film equivalent of a television bottle episode, placing three people within the confines of an underground bunker in the boonies of Louisiana. One participant, Michelle, (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up there after a car accident, carried in by the owner, Howard (John Goodman), a farmer and professional doomsday prepper. The third player is Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a self-identified disappointment who built the bunker for on Goodman's behalf. What brings the three of them into the bunker remains a mystery. Goodman and Gallagher claim some sort of an attack – the cause of which is speculated at frequently and ranges from aliens to Russians – has contaminated the air and killed millions of people. Winstead, who was in the process of leaving her fiance prior to the accident, doesn't quite believe the outlandish story, and the rest of “10 Cloverfield Lane” is spent delving into the mysteries of the circumstances and discussing abusive parents and broken families.

There are in effect three mysteries in this film split between the inside of the bunker and the outside world, and those mysteries are tied to the trustworthiness of the bunker’s inhabitants – the movie poster raises that question – and the circumstances above ground. “10 Cloverfield Lane” does a rather poor job integrating all three together into one coherent film, deciding instead to tackle the queries it raises one at a time with just a few less than stellar hints as to the nature of each mystery. The effect is like three acts told in a linear fashion, a bit of a disappointment for a film that sells itself as esoteric, with the pieces mashed together with the deftness of drunken thief. The effect is a film that drags out once the first two mysteries are resolved but still feels short because the three sections don't receive enough time to breathe..

Perhaps things might have been different if the film played up the claustrophobic nature of the environment – a feature that should be the main selling point for a film that mostly takes place in an underground bunker. While the place is indeed small, it's never depicted as uncomfortably tight for its three occupants. There's more than enough space for characters to chat and plan behind another character's back, or to construct things without the third party knowing exactly what is going on around his or her back. This is “10 Cloverfield Lane’s” grandest weakness; the movie still could have been something if it at least maintained some level of intensity within it’s theoretical small confines.

Failure in that aspect makes the film’s other flaws even more glaring, one of which is really a shame to have to say because it involves Goodman. The Howard role calls for someone capable of evoking menace, which just isn’t a level Goodman is capable of reaching. He can do strange, avuncular, fatherly, and definitely crazy, but his presence in this movie never ascends to discomfiting or creepy: He's usually far more comically odd than he is terrifying, drawing a surprisingly large number of laughs for someone who is characterized as being unhinged.

That last point infects “10 Cloverfield Lane” far more than it should. Even the opening scene, an homage of sorts to “Psycho,” tries so hard to be intense it comes across as light and humorous. “10 Cloverfield Lane” has a habit of accidentally deescalating the intensity instead of ramping it up, resulting in a surprisingly campy experience for a film that, again, positions itself as mysterious and esoteric. Then again, to paraphrase Public Enemy, you shouldn’t necessarily believe the hype when it comes to films tied to J. J. Abrams.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 103 minutes

Genre: Mystery

Ask Away

Target audience: People wondering what all the rumpus is about.

Take the whole family?: The violence in it is graphic enough to ensure a tough viewing experience for kids younger than 10.

Theater or Netflix?: Wait for it to come to you.

Does J. J. Abrams have any substance?: If he does, he hides it pretty well behind all of the lens flares and glossiness of movies like “Star Trek” and the pretty good “Star Wars” sequel he just directed. Abrams does have a sizable amount of talent, especially when it comes to juggling the wants of fervent fan bases like the two mentioned earlier, but he takes these projects far, far too seriously when it comes to the marketing. I think there’s more to him than easy gimmicks, but he needs to do one film without that sales pitch to prove it.

Watch this instead?: “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” is way more fun than this thing is. Plus, try getting the theme song out of your head. I'm also a fan of “Super 8,” another Abrams film that marketed curiosity but is often engaging and at least shows Abrams can make light of himself.

'Zootopia' is deceptively cute

Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) and Flash (Raymond Persi) reenact the typical DMV experience in "Zootopia." Image courtesy Disney.

“Zootopia” is one of those films that starts off on a very good note and just continues to build from there. In this case, it’s an opening sequence that provides useful exposition in a unique and credible manner and establishes the personality of its main character, a bunny named Judy Hopps.  Hopps, depicted in the opening as a child but voiced later by Ginnifer Goodwin, is shown as an inventive, optimistic, smart, melodramatic and resourceful rabbit willing to stand up for what she thinks is right no matter what the consequences may be. Viewers learn all of that within five minutes, and the important attributes of the little bunny (and female role model) that eventually can are built upon from there.

That little tidbit is isn’t the most important reason to enjoy this fun and clever little flick, but it does showcase the very good filmmaking behind “Zootopia” and puts faith in the audience that the filmmakers can handle the topic they are about to address. This film is about racism, a topic that is difficult to discuss or even write about because of its complexities, yet one the filmmakers handle with grace and a gentle hand. “Zootopia” tackles this issue head on and hammers the message home with the help of some good character buildings and oodles of humor that – to cop a phrase from another Disney film – helps the medicine go down.

Back to Goodwin's little Judy Hopps, who starts off as a rabbit living in a small town with her farming family (her parents are voiced by Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake) but dreams of becoming a police officer. Her goal is an ambitious one – no rabbit has ever served as a police officer because rabbits are small and seen as meek – but she finishes at the top of her class at the police academy and is assigned to work at a station in the heart of the titular city, Zootopia. Hopps imagines Zootopia as a place where animals from all backgrounds come together and thrive; the reality is a messy city where major conflict lies just under the surface. Even her dream job is a letdown, as her boss, Chief Bogo, (Idris Elba) assigns her to be a meter maid and dole out tickets as the rest of the department searches for more than a dozen citizens gone missing. She soon finds herself assigned to the case of a missing otter at the behest of assistant mayor Bellweather (Jenny Slate) and enlists the help of con artist fox Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) in the search. The investigation takes them all over the city's vast terrain and into a complicated conspiracy that puts the future of Zootopia in jeopardy.

At its heart, “Zootopia” is a film about racism. It’s a movie that outlines the dangers of racial stereotypes, explains how easy it is for people to succumb to and be manipulated by preconceived notions of other people (or animals in this case). That’s the funny thing about the world depicted within the city of Zootopia, a place Hopps initially imagines as a Utopia but a place that keeps it together out of necessity. So while a giraffe and a tiger might mingle on a bus, an elephant can and will deny service to a fox like Nick Wilde because of blatant racism, and a leopard can get demoted because of his perceived nature. Those are big notes to hit, the easy kind that when left in isolation create pablum like Academy Award winning picture “Crash,” yet “Zootopia goes for institutional racism – Hopps’ storyline is rooted in that issue – and even casual racism that pops up in quotidian situations. The fact that “Zootopia” takes a minute to discuss the use of certain words and outlines the problems of, say, touching people’s hair is rather impressive and much more nuanced than other films that tackle race like the one mentioned earlier.  

“Zootopia” presents all of this in a brightly colored and very hilarious package that limits the onslaught of animal-related cultural puns that cheapen the experience and opts instead to craft some subtly spectacular jokes. That sloth sequence shown in the trailer plays just as well in the theater – that slow-building smile is terrific – and “Zootopia” complements that with pratfalls, sight gags, clever word play, pop culture references and a few killer punchlines to form a rather fun time at the cinema. At least until the third act, which sees the film drag a little as its burdened by a complex yet easy to figure out plot. Then again, neither problem is a fatal flaw for a film targeted at children, and “Zootopia” does so much right (how many films successfully tackle race and feminism?) it earns a little forgiveness for those flaws. It’s easy enough to rail against kid-centered films like the loathsome “Norm of the North” that represent everything wrong with children’s entertainment; “Zootopia” on the other hand, is an example of what the genre can be at its best.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 108 minutes (One hour and 48 minutes)

Genre: Animation

Ask Away

Target audience: Families and people interested in anthropomorphism.

Take the whole family?: Kids old enough to attend a movie screening without automatically bursting into histrionics will find this film very entertaining.

Theater or Netflix?: Take the kids to the theater for a fun day out; just avoid paying for the unnecessary 3D or IMAX options.

How many pop culture references are there?: Not quite as many as one would find in a “Shrek” film, but “Zootopia” does have its fair share. Some, like a “Godfather” reference or one about Adele, are a little easy, but they're balanced by a rather fun “Breaking Bad” shout out and a subtle reference to the great Christmas special “Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas.” Most importantly, the humor works without needing to know what is being referenced.

Watch this as well?: Anything within Disney's recent run – “Wreck-It Ralph” is my favorite – makes for a solid companion to this one. Add to that another little family film that deals with racism in spectacularly clever way while maintaining a strong sense of humor, “Paddington.”