No, guys, I have not been hired by any United States Antarctic Research Program to assist John Blair and his fellow scientists at Outpost 31. Neither will I be relocating to any research base in Antarctica. Nor do I have a college alumnus named R.J. MacReady.
Those were lies. My post yesterday was an April Fool’s Day prank. The setting and people I described yesterday are derived from the classic 1982 sci-fi/horror film, John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”
[THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR, GENERAL SPOILERS.]
Wow. The script for “Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016) was really bad.
I hate to begin a review with a statement so negative, but it’s true. I really think that I could have done better than this, and I know nothing about screenwriting. Hell, parts of the movie were actually MSTy-worthy. I just can’t believe that the gifted David S. Goyer had a hand in this.
Batman is flatly rendered and barely likable. Superman is capably played by Henry Cavill, but has little to say. Lex Luthor is portrayed as a cloying, verbose, flamboyant, attention-seeking manchild. He gets all the screen time in the world (and more dialogue than Superman, it seems), and he really come across as a whiny, rambling high school student playing at theologian, trying in vain to impress the girls. Luthor seems to want to ingratiate himself to every other character on screen. Strangely, this includes even those he is threatening or endeavoring to murder. He has weird vocal tics that quickly get on our nerves. “Mmm.” He makes repeated references to god, who he hates, and … this makes him hate the godlike Superman, via Freudian transference. Or something.
He consequently wants to kill Superman. He has kryptonite and demonstrably capable mercenaries at his disposal. But, for some reason, he wants to employ unreliable, convoluted plans to prompt Batman to do it. His plans to motivate Batman include harassing him with newspaper clippings and nasty notes, like a deranged stalker.
He also has a photograph of Wonder Woman that she would like to keep secret. She goes ahead and mentions it to an ostensibly drunken Bruce Wayne at a party anyway.
Oh! Luthor also knows the secret identities for both Superman and Batman, and has known for some time. We don’t find out how he knows, and he does far less to exploit this information than you would think. Couldn’t he easily (and quite legally) cause problems for both men simply by exposing them? Superman knows Batman’s identity too; I guess we can chalk that up to his x-ray vision? Batman is not in the know, and spends much of the movie trying to play catch-up, and is easily manipulated by Luthor. This is despite the fact that, in the comics, he is the world’s greatest detective.
There is bad dialogue, weird science, and bad science. There are murky, vague plot points and unsupported character motivations. Some things are just plain dumb — Metropolis and Gotham City stand within sight of each other, just across a bay. Either hero could easily intervene in the other’s city … but they apparently respect each other’s nearly adjacent turf, even though they don’t know or trust each other.
Even the premise is shaky — legions of people hate Superman because they blame him for the damage inflicted by Zod during the events of “Man of Steel” (2013). Couldn’t he just exonerate himself by simply telling the truth — that Zod attacked earth and he rose to defend it? I’m willing to bet most people would get that.
There are … dream sequences … and/or visions … and/or messages from the future? And … conversations with the dead? Or … not? You tell me.
Why does Superman need a winter jacket?
Why does he refer to his mother as “Martha?” Do any of us refer to our mothers by their first name?
I could go on, but you get the idea. I actually found my attention wandering during this movie.
All of this is a shame, because there are hints of brilliance hiding among the mediocrity. The movie is ambitious. It seems to want to say a lot about weighty themes such as power, unlimited power, its ability to corrupt, and the unintended consequences of unilateral action. There seem to be visual references to real world horrors like 9/11 and ISIS’ terrorism, which I found pretty bold. I’ve never been good with subtext. Were there allegories here that I missed, connected with U.S. foreign policy or the War on Terror?
I will say this — the film isn’t quite as bad as the critics are making it out to be. It isn’t all garbage, it’s just a below average superhero film. And it appears worse because it’s part of a genre characterized by a lot of really good films — Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies were groundbreaking, and most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s titles were quite good. So this ambitious misfire seems far worse in contrast. I myself would rate this movie a 5 out of 10 — even if I might be biased here by my lifelong love for these iconic characters.
I’ll tell you what — why don’t I go ahead and list this movie’s successes? There are a few things that I really liked, and this blog post is so negative it’s starting be a buzzkill.
Postscript: a note to those who might be new to comics — this movie cribs heavily from two famous comic book story arcs. The first is 1972’s “Must There Be A Superman?” and the second is 1986’s graphic novel, “The Dark Knight Returns.” I haven’t read the former, but let me assure you that the latter is incredibly good. It was written and illustrated by Frank Miller, and it was so damn good it actually transformed the medium, by changing how fans and the general public viewed comic books. It’s a masterpiece. The point I’m trying to make is this — please don’t judge the seminal comic series by its putative representation by this film.
Postscript II: has there really been a great live-action Superman movie since “Superman II” in 1980? It’s well known that the third and fourth installments in the 80’s franchise were abominable. I thought that “Superman Returns” (2006) and “Man of Steel” were both good, but they got mixed reviews from audiences and critics alike. Weird.
“You wanna fight? Then step up and we’ll get it on!”
Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
And Happy Throwback Thursday, too. House of Pain’s “Top O’ The Mornin’ To Ya” dates from 1992. It actually has a pretty nifty “Return of the Jedi” reference, for you Star Wars fans who currently rule this little thing called the Internet.
And the song is memorable to this comic book fan for being a great intro track for Colin Farrell’s Bullseye in 2003’s “Daredevil.” I actually am the rare (or possibly unique) individual who really likes that movie. I bought it on DVD, and I’ve seen it more times than I care to publicly admit, given its ignominy.
I’ve never read a single “Deadpool” comic book, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying the movie. It’s a fun, creative and … unconventional entry into the “X-Men” film franchise that actually made me laugh out loud a few times. I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
It isn’t high art. It’s got a thin story based on a rickety plot device, nearly no exposition, and it includes some cartoonish action that I thought was just too over the top, even by comic book movie standards. (Our hero dodges bullets and survives a stab to the brain.)
It helps to bear in mind this movie’s real purpose — fan service for the infamous niche character’s evident legions of followers. “Deadpool” isn’t meant to be densely plotted, like “X2: X-Men United” (2003), or genuinely cinematic, like the Christopher Nolan “Batman” films. It’s a long awaited, R-rated feature film to please loyal fans of this profane, adult-oriented antihero, who would be out of place and necessarily bowlderized in a mainstream superhero-teamup flick. (And I kinda get that — I loved the “Wolverine” comics when I was a kid, and, trust me, his film incarnation is tame compared to its source material.)
“Deadpool” is damn funny. The movie succeeds by making us laugh. And combining a raunchy comedy with an “X-Men” film gives it a weird, cool, subversive vibe. It makes you wonder if Stan Lee would approve of this sort of thing … until you see Lee himself in a cameo at the story’s strip bar. It’s fun to know that dirty jokes indeed do exist within the “X-Men” movie universe.
The lowbrow jokes made me cringe one or twice (“baby hand.”) But you’ve got to give the movie credit for delivering its bathroom-wall humor if that’s what the original character is about. (Are the comics like this?) Ryan Reynolds is genuinely funny, and his deadpan delivery is perfect. The film might not have even worked at all with out him.
By the way, this movie actually reminded me a hell of a lot of a long-ago flick that I absolutely loved, but which I’m guessing is largely forgotten — Andrew Dice Clay’s “The Adventures of Ford Fairlane” (1990). That movie also had a foulmouthed, lone, maverick antihero who often broke the fourth wall, and that also made me laugh like hell. I know it sounds like a strange comparison, but they’re very similar films.
Finally, I’d like to think that the Wade Wilson we see here actually IS a version of the Wade Wilson that we first met in the widely lamented “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (2009). (And how can he not be, if that movie is canon?) If “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (2014) rebooted the timeline, then the Deadpool we’re rooting for here was never recruited, corrupted and experimented upon by William Stryker. So you can have your cake and eat it, too.
“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” (2016) is a fun enough horror-comedy — maybe not quite as good as it could be, considering all of its excellent ingredients, yet still better than most new zombie movies out there. I’d give it a 7 out of 10.
It’s a great genre mashup, and I don’t just mean combining Jane Austen’s 1813 classic book with horror’s most grisly sub-genre. (This is a film adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith’s 2009 eponymous satirical novel.) It’s also a detailed and thoughtfully constructed horror-fantasy. (That opening credits’ alternate-history lesson was a nice touch.) Then it tries, with less success, to be a serviceable romance and a mystery.
The film has a lot going for it: a fun concept, good actors, mostly competent direction, and a creative team that obviously had a hell of a lot of fun with the source material. Science fiction fans should have fun spotting Matt Smith, Lena Headey and Charles Dance. The movie has outstanding sets, costumes and filming locations — this was shot on location at historic mansions throughout England. The fight choreography was decent enough, even if it was occasionally a little hard to follow. Finally, the zombies that we get to see are indeed creepy — they’re not Romero-type zombies, but the livelier, chattier, brain-eating, sentient baddies similar to those of John Russo’s “Return of the Living Dead” films. The makeup and digital effects for the monsters are pretty damn good.
Considering its unique idea, its zaniness and its high production values, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” could have been an instant cult favorite. But it still falls short of greatness with two flaws that I couldn’t ignore.
The first is its seeming reliance on a single joke — the juxtaposition of Austen’s proper ladies as badass, feminist heroines in a crazy, Kung-fu, blood-and-guts zombie war. I believe that’s funny and tickles the viewer for maybe 20 minutes. But it isn’t enough to sustain the humor for the length of a feature film. It’s fun, but badass, wise-cracking warrior women have been a common trope in mainstream horror film and television for a long time. Joss Whedon’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” came to TV 19 years ago, for example; the film that inspired it was five years earlier.
Second, for a film with “zombies” in its title, the monsters are a little sparse. I’m guessing the script closely followed the 2009 book, which I have not read … but this isn’t the actioner that horror fans might be hoping for. (And why not? The film falls under so many other categories.) The movie could have been better if there had been less banter and situational humor, and more zombie fighting. Its establishing shots and sweeping vistas were downright beautiful … I kept waiting for a major land engagement that would knock my socks off. But … there isn’t really a final battle, and the story disappoints a little with its anti-climax. The action sequence that we are presented with is cool, and well executed, but the large-scale period battles you’re probably hoping for occur almost entirely off screen.
Oh — one final quibble … who exactly were the Four Horsemen, outside their allegorical context? And what happened to them? They were nice and unsettling — one of the movie’s few scary moments occurs when we wonder whether they’ve spotted a protagonist. Were scenes cut from this movie that would have explained their role in the story?
It really just seems to show us everything we’ve seen before: ominous dialogue; dire, vague warnings from sources; and flashbacks to urgent looking 50’s-era soldiers and government workers. All of those things taken together were sufficient to entertain for, oh, say … eight years or so. But by the time we reached Season 9, the show really suffered from what seemed like endlessly recycled tropes and story arcs.
If the show does take new directions, as it needed to before it was cancelled, then it will need time to develop. The January “miniseries” will only be six episodes to start with. And I thought I read elsewhere that Chris Carter intends some of those to go to the popular “monster-of-the-week” eps that had nothing to do with the overarching mythology.
Nor do I think our main characters will be reunited with the Cigarette Smoking Man. We do not see the face of (priceless) actor William B. Davis. It’s only a hand, and it looks like a young man’s hand. I’m betting we see him only in flashback.
See what you think from the trailer below. (It’s in two parts.)
I know this is probably non sequitur, but if you love Davis’ work the way I do, then please check out his supporting role in the criminally underrated thriller, “The Tall Man” (2012).
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 