Wonder Woman Review (2017)

Lets get the hyperbole out of the way, shall we? Patty Jenkins’ “Wonder Woman” (the fourth film in the D.C. Extended Universe) is the best DC superhero film since “The Dark Knight.”

Now let me qualify that statement a bit: being the best DC superhero film since “Dark Knight” isn’t exactly a high mark to clear. “Suicide Squad” and “Batman v Superman” are miserable, overstuffed slogs and “Man of Steel” is good until that trainwreck of a last third. However, DC’s recent slump doesn’t diminish the high quality displayed in Jenkins’ picture. “Wonder Woman” isn’t merely passable or mediocre, it’s drastically better than those other lackluster flicks.

Jenkins emphasizes character over spectacle while the narrative is coherent and focused. It doesn’t tease upcoming DCEU films and the script by Allan Heinberg doesn’t clog the movie with unnecessary side plots or excess McGuffins to give the illusion of depth. Additionally, “Wonder Woman” is a lot of fun--charming and silly in equal measure. It combines the goofy, mythical otherworldliness of “Thor” with the period combat/espionage film dynamics of the first “Captain America” and lightly touches on the horrors of war and the struggles women face in society.

Through a flimsy flashback-framing device (that opens and closes the film with terribly ham-fisted voice over) we’re transported to the lush, dislocated island paradise known as Themysciria where a race of Amazons live in peace. Wonder Woman, aka Diana (Gal Gadot) is the most restless and headstrong of them, desperate to become a warrior and protect others from danger. She gets her chance when U.S. solider Steve (Chris Pine) crashes his airplane near the island. Steve is doing spy work for the British and warns the isolated Amazons about World War 1 and its threat to humanity. Diana decides to accompany Steve on his mission (going to the chaotic Western Front) hoping to singlehandedly stop the war and bring peace.

However, things aren’t so simple and in this regard “Wonder Woman” is a poignant coming of age film. Diana is fierce and self-assured, boldly marching into any harry situation. And unlike the pessimistic Batman or the latest mopey incarnation of Superman, she’s brimming with optimism. Though she’s also incredibly naïve and unprepared for the fact that humans, especially men, are a violent species that crave war and conflict. Her initial plan to stop the Great War is noble but somewhat simplistic, not taking into account the complexities and messiness of war. She’s never seen a village full of women and children cruelly gassed. This harsh reality has a tremendous effect on Diana, ultimately leaving her mature and slightly jaded.

This is admittedly gloomy material but Jenkins’ never lets said gloominess totally dominate the picture. “Wonder Woman” touches on the horrors of war and the cruelty of humanity while giddily embracing its pulpy comic book origins at the same time. Diana may not be able to fully comprehend the messy and gruesome nature of human conflict but she is a super being from a mythical realm--meaning she can do things the average solider can’t. At one point Diana heroically charges across No Mans Land to attack a German trench and free a French village, eventually inspiring fellow soldiers stuck in the trenches. Not a bad ally to have. Instead of spending all her time sulking about how awful humanity is Diana is proactive; killing plenty of Germans with her patented glowing lasso and shield, trying her hardest to remain optimistic and slice through the dense politics and convolutions of human conflict.  

On top of that, “Wonder Woman” playfully mocks rigid societal codes and structures, like The Patriarchy. The sequence in which Diana and Steve are in London to prepare for their mission is rife with great fish-out-of-water humor. Diana being puzzled by and then criticizing silly, misogynistic societal norms is a joy to watch. For example, her priceless reaction to the fact that women aren't allowed to be apart of high-level strategic meetings. Related to this spirited ribbing is the superb chemistry between Gadot and Pine-- their repartee and comedic timing are impeccable.

Pine, with his cocky and dopey performance, may be at his very best but Gadot is the star here. While her performance is occasionally shaky, (this is her first leading role) overall the relative newcomer holds her own, injecting Diana with ferocity, compassion and effortless wit. Jenkins keeps the film’s focus squarely on Diana and her evolution from bright-eyed Princess to grounded warrior.

The picture can be very clunky and heavy-handed at times, (ala the superfluous flashback-framing device) spoon-feeding fairly obvious plot points, themes and character arcs. Making matters worse, the last act is a mess. It’s the only time Jenkins really loses control of the project and things become incoherent. The final hero-villain showdown is an exhausting muddle of ugly CGI destruction (the CGI throughout looks third rate) and the villain himself is overly generic and one dimensional. It's the same old story:  good third acts and compelling villains are difficult to pull off in superhero movies.  Spectacle and cliche briefly snuffs out character and narrative clarity.

Nevertheless, “Wonder Woman” is an empowering, self contained, character driven, all around entertaining superhero origin film that more than adequately sets up the Amazonian Princess for future films.

B 

The Lego Batman Movie Review (2017)

As much as I like Christopher Nolan’s gritty, noir-ish “Batman” pictures (“Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight,” and “The Dark Knight Rises”) there’s something refreshing about Chris McKay’s animated feature “The Lego Batman Movie” and its silly, freewheeling take on the Caped Crusader. In fact it might the most fun Batman movie to date.

From the very beginning, “The Lego Batman Movie” cleverly mocks the brooding grey and blue toned seriousness of the Nolan films (and all the other DC superhero movies that aimed to copy them, often times poorly. See “Batman v Superman” and you’ll know what I mean) along with the stale tropes associated with the superhero genre as well as action movies in general.

The film is packed to the gills with witty banter and pop culture references. In that regard it’s the first Batman comedy/satire. Not all of the jokes land but I found myself laughing more often than not. And sometimes the more mundane, understated gags hit harder than those the winky, snarky pop culture references. For example, Batman (voiced by Will Arnett, pitch perfect casting) walking around his giant mansion wearing a red bathrobe and his Batman mask, waiting for his lobster dinner to reheat in the microwave and then watching “Jerry Maguire” by himself in his home theater.

Considering that the premise of the movie involves a vigilante that wears a bat themed costume, and who fights antagonists like The Joker or The Riddler, it’s nice to see a movie that embraces that inherent silliness. Superhero movies don’t all have to be dour and grounded in reality. “The Lego Batman Movie” is a frenetic, fast paced, bright colored diversion that oozes with charm.

Yet, maybe the most unexpected thing about “The Lego Batman Movie” (a spin off of “The Lego Movie” from a few years ago) is the well-constructed and endearing story at its center that stresses the importance of family and companionship. Batman is portrayed as deeply egocentric, the most egocentric of any onscreen Batmans. Though he saves the city of Gotham from crime on a regular basis he’s more interested in himself and how awesome he looks (he has a “nine pack,” instead of a six pack!) However, beneath his reckless, arrogant exterior lies a deeply damaged and vulnerable man afraid of commitment and companionship.

I also got a kick out of the neglected bromance side plot between him and The Joker (Zac Galfianakis). The Joker is hurt that Batman doesn’t consider him his greatest enemy, acting like a wounded partner in a romantic relationship. Again and again, Mckay mixes absurdity with sincerity rather beautifully.

Instead of simply being a collection of gags and pop culture references poorly strung together, “The Lego Batman Movie” crafts a compelling narrative and fashions a fleshed out protagonist, making the humor more palpable.

Admittedly, the film can be a bit much. The screenplay (credited to five people) is occasionally messy as it attempts to cram as many pop culture references/gags as possible into its hour and forty-four minute run time. It can be overwhelming. On top of that, from the middle of the second act until the end, “The Lego Batman Movie” becomes more epic than it needs to be. When the film moves outside the world of Batman and DC it gets chaotic, resulting in a slightly tedious and cluttered finale involving yet another inter dimensional portal--the one stale superhero movie trope that this movie mocks but also falls victim to.

Even so, “The Lego Batman Movie” is a lot fun. I’m not sure whether it will stand the test of time like, say, “The Dark Knight” or “Batman Begins” (or even the Tim Burton Batman films) but in the moment it provides an amusing and endearing riff on the Batman mythology.

B- 

Suicide Squad Review (2016)

There’s a compelling nugget of an idea buried within the loud, CGI laden superhero stew that is “Suicide Squad.” That is: a “Dirty Dozen”-esque action/buddy film with imprisoned DC supervillains.

The idea of a group of vulgar, crazy, self-motivated, ice-cold killing criminals coming together for the purposes of good is intriguing and different enough to work in this current superhero film climate. Warner Brothers found the right writer/director in David Ayer (“Training Day,” “Fury” “Sabotage” and “End of Watch”) who has a proven track record for writing compelling tough guy characters on both sides of the law and writing funny, authentic tough guy banter for them to hurl at each other. With “Suicide Squad” Ayer is given a potentially strong cast of villains to do his thing.

Our squad members include: the hit man Deadshot (a cocky, loose Will Smith that we haven’t seen in a while), the demented Harely Quinn (Margo Robbie, flirty, giggly, gleefully lethal), an Australian thief named Boomerang (Jai Courtney, who is surprisingly effective), a buff reptilian fellow called Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) and a Latino gangster version of the Human Torch, Diablo (Jay Hernandez).  In addition, the great Viola Davis plays the ice-cold government organizer of the squad and Joel Kinnaman plays a Spec Ops bro. Oh, and The Joker (Jared Leto) shows up sometimes.*

The picture is at its best when Ayer lets the squad shoot the shit together. If “Batman v Superman” was overwhelmingly gloomy and serious, “Suicide Squad” is more loose and playful because the characters (and the actors) look like they’re having fun. They’re have a good time being bad guys and being in the presence of other bad guys, trading jokes and insults. Unlike Superman, they don’t have to worry about etiquette or maintaining a public image. In fact they don’t give a damn what you think of them. Because of the PG-13 rating, the film isn’t quite as edgy or brash as it should be but the cast members still make their character’s malevolence and impoliteness apparent.

Unfortunately “Suicide Squad,” like a number of studio manufactured superhero movies, succumbs to certain nagging genre tropes and undercooked plot points that dilute the authentic stuff, namely, a one-dimensional antagonist with poorly defined abilities and motives. She is The Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), a witch from another dimension. It would be too lengthy and convoluted to explain exactly how she becomes a threat (in the movie it’s sloppily established) so lets just say she wants to destroy the world. How? Using a big beam of blue energy that shoots into the sky causing destruction somehow I don’t quite know how it works.  

All I know is that the “big-beam-of-energy-shooting–into-the-sky” cliché needs to go away. It’s a lazy, poorly established excuse for spectacle and CGI. This trope is part of the larger issue with “Suicide Squad:” it turns into yet another generic, predictable superhero spectacle with the group saving the day and stopping bigger supervillains. And in its attempt to be so epic and monumental (through the blurry, chaotically photographed action scenes and blaring orchestral score) it undercuts the tightknit, playful dynamic of its core characters. In other words, the film becomes dictated more by plot and spectacle than character.

It also doesn’t help that the beginning is bogged down in exposition and set up. There are a lot of characters to introduce and the picture does it in the blandest way possible. Using a top-secret government binder, Davis’ character quickly reads each of the characters names and attributes, which is followed by brief flashbacks. Riveting stuff, I know. There are simply too many characters for me to care about any of these introductions. I don’t need to see a Reader’s Digest version of Deadshot’s backstory, or Quinn’s. I don’t care if Deadshot has a daughter because the relationship is surface level.

Instead of giving us a bulleted list of the characters and flashbacks that slow the pace down it would have been better to just put these people together; establish their character and personality through interaction and experience, like Ayer did in both “Fury” and “Sabotage.” Let certain details of their backstory come out organically through conversation and the action they’re involved with presently. Once all the group members are set up at the beginning scarce character development happens in the later sections (with the slight exception of Diablo).

There are some funny one-liners and the enthusiasm and playfulness of the cast kept me from totally checking out. But for the most part, the back half of the picture is one dull, murky action scene after another--ultimately leading to a bigger, duller and murkier action sequence involving a torrential downpour of rain and that goddamn beam of blue energy.

I could go on but I think I’ll stop here. “Suicide Squad” is better than “Batman v Superman.” It’s more fun, it’s not as bloated nor does it feel like a commercial for upcoming DC Extended Universe movies (though it is clearly set after the events of “Batman v Superman”).

Sadly, that’s not saying much. The “Suicide Squad” itself is used to tell the same bland superhero tale we’ve seen before.

 C-

*Similarities to Heath Ledger are immediately apparent in the way Leto over enunciates his words and drags out his sentences. However, the Ledger Joker was an all out anarchist who wore a dorky purple suit while Leto plays more of an eccentric gangster. In addition to the white makeup and green hair, he’s tatted up, wears flashy suits and lots of gold bling, resembling a skinny Tony Montana. I wish I had more to say about him considering all the attention he and Leto’s method acting process got leading up to the film’s release but he makes a minor impression here; he could be cut without disrupting the movie. There is a romance between him and Quinn but there just isn’t enough room for it to blossom into anything substantial.

Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice Review (2016)

Zach Snyder’s “Batman v Superman” is the latest superhero extravaganza, this time courtesy of Warner Bros and DC. It’s a follow up to Snyder’s 2013 Superman reboot “Man of Steel” and Warner’s attempt to jumpstart a DC superhero universe (ala the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that will eventually lead to two “Justice League” movies. Unfortunately, Warner Bros is trying to establish this universe too quickly (the “Justice League” movies, as well as a few other standalone DC hero movies are in varying stages of production) and as a result this latest picture suffers dearly. Simply put: there’s too much going on in “Batman v Superman.” Snyder adheres to the “quantity over quality” philosophy. The picture is a disorganized, unfocused, overstuffed and emotionally stagnant mess that turns into a nonstop barrage of mind numbing action.

It’s a shame because the concept at the center of this mess is somewhat compelling. I know I’m in the minority in saying that I’ve grown tired of all these superhero movies, primarily because most tend to follow the same derivate cookie cutter plot involving a one-note villain and a major city being leveled. So, the idea of two superheroes having a scuffle is far more interesting to me than a superhero having to face yet another super villain hell-bent on world domination/destruction. Yet, because so much is crammed into the movie (including cameos from additional superheroes. In terms of the main narrative, they serve zero purpose. But hey…Aquaman!) the conflict gets lost in all the noise and commotion. I guess it’s not enough to simply have Batman and Superman fight.

As far as plot is concerned…there’s a lot of it (and it adds up to squat). We’ve got Batman in Gotham City and Superman in Metropolis…both in the same universe! Batman, aka Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck, unshaven and grouchy) is older and more cynical this time around; his senses are dulled, he’s tired of fighting crime that never seems to end and he’s a cold blooded killer. He’s also been directly affected by collateral damage due to Superman’s silly tendency to destroy buildings during his fights with baddies in Metropolis. For what it’s worth, Affleck’s jaded, washed up Batman is by far the best, most refreshing thing about the movie because it’s at least distinct from other onscreen incarnations.

As for the Kryptonian himself, Superman (Henry Cavill) is…there too.  He’s still flying around in his red cape and blue tights, at times resembling a wax figurine and posing as a reporter for the city newspaper by day, doing a lot of intense staring and brooding either way. That’s pretty much it. He’s the same old Superman. Cavill was so charming and funny in last year’s spy comedy “The Man from U.N.C.L.E,” but here, he has about as much personality and charisma as a block of Kryptonite. The conversations about him (by various supporting characters and Batman) are far more interesting: is Superman a god? Is he the savior we need? Or is he a false prophet? All thought provoking questions, except the movie only grazes the surface. We get Holly Hunter as a Metropolis senator giving heavy-handed speeches in front of committees and a media montage where various commentators discuss the “Superman Question.”

What else? Well, Superman’s main squeeze and fellow reporter Lois Lane (the lovely Amy Adams, doing the best she can with thinly written character) runs around in a pants suit doing some investigative journalism and needing rescueing from Superman (seriously, she gets captured like three times). We have the mysterious Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg, essentially doing an exaggerated version of his standard fast talking/wise ass persona with a smidge of The Joker thrown in. His performance feels forced most of the time and the character never quite cuts deep enough) that wants to get his hands on some powerful Kryptonian artifacts. There’s also Batman’s faithful confidant Alfred (Jeremy Irons) and…Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is also shoved into the narrative, only because she’s got her own movie coming up soon (don’t worry, she was shown front and center in the trailers. No spoilers here). I guess it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t fit in with the central narrative. But one thing’s for certain: she has a neat costume.

OK…I’m exhausted.

“Batman v Superman” is overkill in practically everyway. There are too many characters and too many plotlines, which causes the first twenty-five minutes of the movie to be nothing but tedious exposition. It has to tease plot lines and characters for future movies. There are multiple glowing objects that are recovered and/or change hands throughout, a bizarre dream/simulation sequence that feels like it was left over from a first draft of the screenplay, and powerful beams of energy that shoot out of various facilities (powerful beams of energy have become common place in superhero movies for some reason). The movie even manages to go overboard on symbolism and social commentary. We get some 9/11 imagery, lots of Christ symbolism (it is Superman after all), allusions to bitter and disillusioned war veterans, all handled with the subtlety of Superman’s fist and shoddily inserted into the rest of the proceedings. There’s even an homage to “King Kong” near the end because, why not? In other words, the picture tries to cover so much material that it can’t really explore any of it in any real depth or nuance. It has to keep chugging along to shove in even more stuff.

What’s most frustrating is that, despite the convoluted plot and overabundance of material and characters, it adds up to virtually nothing.  Like most other superhero movies, it all comes down to a dull final clash between heroes and a power hungry super villain (again, apparently, Batman fighting Superman isn’t good enough) in a climax that goes on for what feels like an eternity. There are about four fight scenes crammed in to this single sequence, a surprise bad guy, ticking clocks, two damsels in distress and lots of city damage.  Seriously? Was there any sort of editing, either at the script stage or in postproduction? It’s the cherry on top of this chaos sundae.

Even from a technical standpoint the movie is a dud. The action sequences are horrendous--poorly shot using a mix of shaky hand held cam and disorienting crane/dolly work. The editing is muddled and nonsensical; we constantly lose track of what’s going on. And of course, there’s too much action. The cinematography by Larry Fong is simply atrocious, using dull, murky tones of grey and muddied, phony-looking CGI backgrounds. Meanwhile, Han Zimmer’s thundering orchestral score is overbearing and obnoxious. It’s used much too frequently and occasionally drowns out the dialogue.

The bigger issue here is that “Batman v Superman” wants to be big and epic in every scene, as if the filmmakers were worried they would bore the audience (well, they bored us anyway). Rarely does it settle down and let quiet, more intimate moments between characters play out. The few romantic scenes between Superman and Lois feel cheesy and forced. As is the case with most of Snyder’s movies, “Batman v Superman” is ultimately more committed to style and spectacle rather then character and narrative substance.

The longer “Batman v Superman” went on (and the more stuff it introduced) the more I grew to despise it. I walked out of the theater seething with rage, angry that I had to sit through such a long, hollow, bloated mess that wants so badly to be about everything that it’s not much about anything in the long run. It’s one of the worst superhero movies to come out in a while and I never want to see or think about it again.

D