Everything was rushed. Everything happened way too fast. Have the shot-callers at Warner Bros. never heard the parable about the two bulls on the hill? If you take your time and stay focused on the big picture, maybe you get multiple installments that exceed a billion dollars in sales. Chasing the quick payoff gets you a record-breaking opening and a nauseatingly steep drop-off. They had every reason to take things slow. Art, cinematic history, logic and plain, old greed all dictated that a movie with all these people not be the follow-up to Man of Steel. It takes time to tell a story properly (especially one with so much riding on its success). If anybody deserves more than one solo movie, it's Superman. This isn't Thor we're talking about. Everyone knows who he is. When done right, we want more. We were just reintroduced to him three years ago. And he'd just started to become involved with Lois. Time to get familiar with him was sorely needed. Plus, a trilogy, or at the very least a solo sequel, would've had the added benefit of lining the filmmakers' pockets with much more dough. Why would studio executives turn that down? Did these guys even attend Business School??
We all could have done with a less manic Luthor. It seemed like he was doing a Joker impression. If only he were more subdued and thoughtful like, say, Helmut Zemo in Civil War, which, ironically, is one of the criticisms of that movie espoused by professional film reviewers. Luthor's histrionics would've fit right in with all of the goofy goings-on in that thing. I was really hoping to see the more mature Lex -- no, Alexander -- from the Superman animated series, not Mark Zuckerberg on coke. It would be nice if Luthor used his prison sentence as an opportunity to bulk up, but we all know Jesse Eisenberg's not gonna hit the gym.
There were too many people in this thing. Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, and maybe even Doomsday should've all been saved for a later movie. There was just too much going on. Peter Jackson was heavily criticized for expanding his planned two-shot Hobbit story into a trilogy. But, then again, the third film (The Battle of the Five Armies) was the only one I liked -- and it generated nearly $1 billion at the box office.
But, even with all its problems, it's not a 27% film. It's the very first film to take Superman seriously -- after he reveals himself to the world. Man of Steel is unmatched in presenting his origin, but BvS actually considers Superman's effect on society -- much like The Dark Knight examined the unintended consequences of Batman's actions on Gotham City. Director Zack Snyder was undoubtedly tempted by the notion of being the first to use the gimmicky title, but Batman's name shouldn't have even been included, much less come first (Dawn of Justice is even dumber).
BvS and Civil War basically tell the same story: A clever, but physically powerless guy manipulates two famous superheroes into fighting each other from behind the scenes. One of the heroes is a billionaire, genius, heir to a business empire who uses technology to fight crime and the other is abnormally strong and exceptionally strait-laced. Because the heroes have caused a tremendous amount of collateral damage, government oversight seems inevitable.
The difference is that where Civil War talks about the destruction left in the wake of the heroes' battles accompanied by quick snippets of news footage, BvS shows the toll it has taken on human lives -- both physical and psychological. The grand-scale of aerial combat to save basically, everybody from Superman's perspective in Man of Steel is contrasted here with the ground-level terror of those same people who only see themselves as innocent victims and bystanders from Bruce Wayne's perspective. But no one is a bystander when the entire planet is in danger.
This film is wholly about Superman and his place in the world. The exploration of Superman as a savior and an uncontrollable, potential threat is brilliant. He's simultaneously feared and almost worshipped as a deity. The comparisons of certain people in the film to Judeo-Christian figures are magnificent. This is a superhero film with philosophy. There's even a nod to Nietzsche. In fact, The Superman would have been a much better title than what the filmmakers settled on (Dawn of Justice is so corny, I can't even say it without shaking my head). Who he is, what his intentions are, whether he can be trusted, how he should be used. These are all questions that plague the global community, of which Bruce Wayne is only one member.
Even so, Batman was incredible. As much anxiety as there was surrounding Ben Affleck's casting, it's clear that Daredevil simply wasn't the superhero movie for him. Or anyone else. This one is. Christian Bale is still the best Bruce Wayne, but Affleck has surpassed Michael Keaton as the greatest Batman. I, for one, can't wait to see him put the mask on again.
BvS has been widely criticized for essentially being too serious (i.e., more serious than any given MCU movie) and humorless (i.e., lacking the non-stop silliness present in any given MCU movie). Is it weird that critics simultaneously adored the original Jason Bourne trilogy (exceedingly serious, without a joke in sight) and Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (wall-to-wall yucks bordering on stupid-as-shit)? Or is it hypocrisy?
Originally Posted 6/3/17
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment