Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg

Have I Seen it Before: :gritting through my teeth: Yes.

Did I Like It: Let’s get right to it, shall we?

This is... Yes, I’m going to say it, a more wrong-headed film than Batman & Robin (1997). More stunted than Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987). To slightly break up the pattern I’m building, it is even more irritating than Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007), which would make it the single most irritating film ever produced.

Now that I’ve cleared all of the Zack Snyder fans off the site*, let’s really talk about how the film goes wrong.

Martha. We’ve all talked about it. Or, more appropriately, we’ve talked at the issue. From before this film shot a single frame, the conceit has a flaw that was going to take some heavy lifting to surpass. The film was never going to be the battle royale between the Dark Knight (Affleck) and the Man of Steel (Cavill). They would initially disagree, and maybe scuffle just a tad, before realizing that they need to join forces in order to vanquish a larger, common foe.

This movie gets to that point, but hinges their eventual alliance on the fact that their mothers happen to have the same name. This would have been annoying storytelling in its own right, but the fact that the film almost, very nearly credibly sells Batman’s need to destroy Superman, all to have it not mean anything. Suddenly. Irrevocably. So much so that it fuels Batman’s megalomania well into the next movie.

Had Superman had a moment of humanistic purity that stopped their fight, or if Batman’s intellect had uncovered the realization that Lex Luthor (Eisenberg, more on him in a bit) had been playing them for fools the whole time, the third act really could come together.

This movie could never possibly recover from that moment.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. Is there a poorer casting choice in recent memory than Jesse Eisenberg trying to take his Mark Zuckerberg schtick to its absurdist conclusion and make something like a Lex Luthor out of it? He lacks the gravitas for the character. Bruce Willis could have played this character. The task may have been beneath the skills of Bryan Cranston. Even Kevin Spacey equated himself well enough, if nauseatingly in retrospect. I had a debate with somebody shortly after the release as to whether or not the miscasting of Eisenberg or the Martha blunder would be the film’s lasting legacy.

Why can’t it be both?

And there are other flaws as well that are more banal and less load-bearing. At three hours for the “ultimate” edition, it utterly fails to warrant its runtime. There are plenty of perfectly fine films that filled two VHS tapes back in the day, but also plenty of great films that didn’t need to be that long. Making a film long doesn’t guarantee an epic scope, or a story we can sink our teeth into. It guarantees nothing. Editors, please proceed with caution.

Also, I do have one big beef with the film which bears mentioning, speaking of the Ultimate Edition. In the lead up to this home video release, there was a bubbling sense that this extension would include Barbara Gordon/Oracle, and she would be played by Jena Malone. This would have been great casting, and widened the DC movies in a pretty great way. It didn’t happen, though. Malone played... I dunno, some IT person at The Daily Planet. Is it the film’s fault that it didn’t give me Oracle? No. Is it DC Films continued fault that they won’t give us Oracle, even in Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn) (2020)? Absolutely.

And yet, it’s not all bad, which makes it somehow more frustrating. 

Affleck is actually good as Batman. I’m reasonably sure I didn’t need a cinematic reboot of the character only four years after The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but he brings a certain quality to the character that was missing from Bale, or Kilmer, certainly Clooney, and dare I say, even Keaton. His interplay with Alfred (Jeremy Irons) is pristine. His unflinching eagerness for danger in the film’s opening minutes is about as Batman as a film performance could get. The sequence where he rescues Martha is pretty great. Sure, he’s a little eager to kill people standing in his way, but even Keaton wasn’t above some murder, so who am I to judge? I could have done with several more movies with him in the role, if only in the hopes that he could finally shed the title of Best Batman To Never Be In A Good Batman Movie. 

And now there’s nothing left to do but endure Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Speaking of things which have no right to be as long as they are... Let’s get this over with, I suppose.

*I would remind those of faithful still remaining that I kind of liked Man of Steel (2013).

The Social Network (2010)

Director: David Fincher

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer

Have I Seen It Before?: Sure.

Did I like it?: I’ve been taking a deep dive into the works of Aaron Sorkin recently. For some, that feels like a chore, but he’s always had a certain cadence and a certain type-a workaholic streak running through his work that appeals to me even in the more bewildering parts of Studio 60 of the Sunset Strip. For all of its flaws, I think I like The Newsroom, and really think a couple of extra seasons would have pissed all of the correct people off in all the right ways.

So, why did he make a movie about the invention of Facebook. What’s more, why would he make it focus not on the work of actually creating the site (that is largely act 1 material here), and instead focus on the myriad lawsuits brought about by the people that were almost involved. Sorkin is at his best when he is focusing on people—perhaps unrealistically—doing great work. And those lawsuits don’t end up with any kind of cathartic moment. How did the man who made his bones on A Few Good Men (1992) end up writing a movie that lives and dies in depositions?

Come to think of it, why would anyone want to make a movie about Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) and company? As I write this review, I come to the realization that I may not like the movie that much. It is slick and stylish, frequently amusing, but the core doesn’t quite work. Every character fails to get the things they truly wanted. The Winklevi (Hammer) get a quiet settlement and a sixth-place finish in the Olympics. Sean Parker (Timberlake) gets a one-way ticket to obscurity. Eduardo (Garfield) gets a little bit of money, but he’s a footnote in the history of the site but doesn’t get to be a player with it anymore. Even Zuckerberg, in true Michael Corleone or Charles Foster Kane fashion gets much of what he wanted but leaves a trail of injury in his wake. He is still waiting for the friend request from the girl that launched a thousand lines of code.

One might call that a tragedy, but what about it is tragic? Not one character meets their end. All of them are wealthy to the point where their great-grandchildren are unlikely to have to worry about money. Whatever injury they endure in the process of the film’s story will either be healed (or won’t) in the fullness of time. I can’t imagine the money won’t help them forget, or at least give them the opportunity to find and fund new avenues of misery. Much of this film, between Sorkin and Fincher’s work is pleasing, but none of it adds up. It makes one wish they had chosen some other subject.

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I missed in the theaters. I was even scheduled to watch it for an episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but was too enmeshed in the post-production for The Fourth Wall to make time for a screening. C’es la vie.

Did I like it?: As I mentioned in my review of the original <Zombieland (2009)> that zombies and I have never gotten along. Given both my feelings, and the fact that the zombie comedy had been perfected with Shaun of the Dead (2004), it’s pretty impressive that the original could be entertaining at all.

Did it need a sequel? Is a sequel even welcome? What more could they explore that was somehow omitted from the original? As it turns out not much, as the characters have stayed in almost complete stasis in the ten years since the original film. Suspiciously so. Has there been any series with ten years between installments where the characters are more entrenched in the types of people they were in the earlier entry?

That stasis notwithstanding, given that the four leads are likable enough, spending another two hours with them doesn’t feel like a chore. Adding a series of characters that are pointedly similar to the originals to throw a wrench into things feels varying degrees of awkward, but the film could have been far more embarrassing, as many protracted gap sequels often are.

But couldn’t we have had more with Bill Murray (once again, Bill Murray)? I once again was not expecting him to be in the film, but his adventures in the first day of Zombieland over the end credits are once again the highlight of the film. Murray probably wouldn’t have been game for such an endeavor, but we couldn’t have done a prequel of his entire adventures leading up to the first movie?

I probably just want fewer zombie movies, and far more Bill Murray movies. Thus, this film series (should it continue) will likely continue to flummox me.

Zombieland (2009)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I was an extremely skeptical viewer on opening weekend. What could possibly be added to the arena of Zombie comedies after Shaun of the Dead (2004)?

Did I like it?: I think it’s important to admit that I have such little regard for the Zombie genre that this film could have been very good, indeed, and completely missed my interest. Most of the Romero films have failed to make anything resembling an impression with me. Like any good consumer of popular culture, I watched The Walking Dead for as long as I could, but checked out far earlier than most, and can’t say I enjoyed the depressing odyssey for which I did remain. Some people dream of living through the Zombie apocalypse, and for the life of me I can’t understand those people. Were armies of the undead to rise and crave the brains of the living, I would easily happily check out when CDC facility explodes, if it is all the same to you.

All of the above being said, I’ve definitely enjoyed Zombieland the handful of times I’ve watched. The zombies themselves are completely incidental to that enjoyment, naturally, as it is all basic fair. The other visual flourishes regarding the rules Columbus (Eisenberg) devises for surviving the Zombie apocalypse, and the chemistry between the actors and their performances make the whole affair far more watchable than it has any right to be.

And then, there’s Bill Murray (Bill Murray). What a wonderful treat to be surprised by Murray having fun in a film and with his own screen personae. Before seeing this film, the idea of playing Ghostbusters with Murray (wherein you get to be Pete Venkman, naturally) wouldn’t have occurred to me as bucket list item. Now, it’s the one thing I keep thinking about any time I watch the movie.

If that’s the kind of thing one can expect from the Zombie apocalypse, maybe I won’t check out at the earliest opportunity.