All posts by Jonathan King

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.)

@JonRoyalty Review | The Three Separate Films Found in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

As a 6th Grade English Language Arts teacher, I have read many essays. The biggest error I notice is the lack of coherency. Instead of focusing on a singular objective or point and developing it, kids introduce many claims and fail to substantiate each one with fidelity. Such was the fate of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (henceforth referred to as BvS), a film with the coherency and development of a 6th grader’s english essay.

For this review, I will discuss the “separate films” inside BvS that, if made into standalone movies, could be fairly solid. My main go-to line with my kids is “You’re making a lot of good points here, but you’re not developing each one enough. Choose one to focus on, and build it to fruition.” BvS will get the same thesis in this review:

Film 1: Dark Batman “Origin” Film that takes place before Man of Steel

Origin is worse than some swear words in the superhero film genre these days. “We already know how Bruce Wayne became Batman; We don’t need to be told that story again!” When I say origin, I mean the origin of how this Batman came to be the way he is. Ben Affleck (henceforth referred to as Batfleck), the best part of this film, portrays an aged and fatigued Batman. However, he is so vigorous and relentless with his justice distribution. His two big scenes were a grand car chase and a hand-to-hand showdown with an entire floor of bad guys. You can assume that many of the thugs in BvS die instantly or later succumb to the wounds inflicted on them by Batman.

SLAM!

Batfleck also does a great job portraying the Bruce Wayne millionaire playboy mystique and much of the “World’s Greatest Detective” moniker when he sneaks around downloading secret files. Jeremy Irons’ Alfred was also stellar and a nice foil to Batfleck.

We can infer that either a singular event or his body of experiences turned Batfleck into this type of Batman, but which one and/or what was it? This is important because we never get a true sense of where he stands on the morality line. Does he refuse to kill people? Or does he refuse to kill people directly, but is okay with people dying because of his actions? He brands criminals who murder and kill, but then does the same thing and, again, outright plans to Superman!

Batfleck is definitely the high point in the film, and we should have gotten to spend more time with him.

Film 2: Superman’s “Hopeful, Political Thriller Synthesis” Sequel to Man of Steel

After the events of Man of Steel, Superman has become a controversial figure. There are those that see his existence as  a bright beacon of hope, a savior of some kind. Others see him as an alien creature with godlike power who has proven to be a serious threat. Superman is so distraught about people’s perceptions of him and the complications people fabricate regarding him saving people.

Holly Hunter’s Senator [name] had a lot of interesting dialogue with other characters in interviews. “Does the world need a Superman?” “What should he do?” Amy Adams’ Lois Lane is serviceable. She’s in love with Superman and basically exists to handle plot macguffins.

This Photo Lied!!

Jesse Eisenberg’s “Lex Luthor” is terrible. His motivations are unclear. He hates Superman because he’s either a) jealous of his power b) has a complex about God and gods c) has daddy issues or d) wants to destroy the world by creating Doomsday who, if he succeeds in doing what he was creating for, will kill Superman (yay!) but kill the entire human race afterward (yay?). His performance is less Lex and more Joker. Kevin Spacey and Gene Hackman already gave us campy quirky Lex; when can we get the Clancy Brown, cold and caculated Lex from the Bruce Timm series? I just wasn’t on board with what Eisenberg was going for.

The Superman stuff basically ends there. The world has mixed feelings about him while politicians and journalists argue. Instead, a follow-up to Man of Steel should be a hopeful tale of Superman’s redemption in the eyes of the public. He goes on to save people while the people argue about him. Superman is a figure that is to inspire hope; the “S” on his chest stands for “hope” on Krypton in this Zack Snyder lore. A proper Man of Steel sequel should articulate through Superman that even though you may make great and destructive mistakes, people should eventually realize your true intentions and be appreciative. The idea that people argue over Superman even though he does the right thing even feeds into the Lord Jesus Christ metaphor that permeates Man of Steel, since a plethora of people had a problem with Jesus performing miracles and challenged him.

The Baddest Pharisee in the Land

Film 3: A Justice League Recruitment Film?

You could argue that the third film found in BvS is a Justice League Recruitment film. Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman (I’m so happy that this is print so I don’t have to risk mispronouncing her name) was better than I expected. Without spoiling anything, she doesn’t do much action-wise until the end. Along the way she’s a woman of mystique and basically an object to facilitate the big Justice League mini-teasers that would be post-credits scenes if this was the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Any further discussion regarding the Justice League setup and recruitment would invite spoilers.

Should you see it?

I suppose you could do worse than BvS. The overall narrative has no coherency at all. The action sequences are filmed well enough. The titular fight is about 3% of the entire running time. Character motivations aren’t clear or sufficient, except Batman. In fact, most things in this movie aren’t great except Batman; see it for Batman at least.

You can read this posts and others just like it at JonathanMKing.Wordpress.com and can Follow this writer on twitter @JonRoyalty

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.), Uncategorized

Two Things Ghostbusters 2016 WON’T Be

♠ … A Pretty Big Twinkie indeed. To celebrate Women’s History Month 2016, we’re going to analyze the new Ghostbusters 2016 trailer (it’s mildly annoying that I need to put a “2016” after the title to distinguish it from the 1984 film because they didn’t bother to put a subtitle behind it) and make some inferences regarding its final form in film this July.

Naturally, this movie’s very existence invites comparisons to the original Ghostbusters film from 1984, as unfair as it may be to do; ’84 is a timeless supernatural comedy classic and ’16 is still only two trailers. Peep it the latest international one:

Familiarize yourself with what you just viewed, as I will be referring back to it continually as we discuss the two things that Ghostbusters ’16 WON’T be: ♠

THE HORRIDLY UNWATCHABLE TRAVESTY PEOPLE ARE CLAIMING IT TO BE

Photo Credit: Imagefli…WOW! That’s how you feel about me??

♦ Honestly, this movie doesn’t look that terrible. We’ll talk about the aesthetics of the film first, followed by its humor.

They definitely got the look of the Ghostbusters right. The ’84 guys weren’t handsome studs and these woman aren’t costumed or made-up to be the female equivalent.

Considering the weapons, they’re satisfying from the trailer. The original ’84 team all wielded the same proton pack and nuclear accelerators. This time around, it looks like each member has her own unique weapon. Though they do have the iconic ’84 weapons, Kate McKinnon’s Holtzmann, an engineer, dual wields some type of nuclear accelerated pistols while Melissa McCarthy’s Yates punches out ghosts with some sort of proton punching gauntlets (1:13 in). The team gets bonus points for building giant bear trap ghost traps (39 seconds in). However, the question on everyone’s minds is, will it make us laugh?

It stars four  women comedians who are supposedly decidedly funny (including Saturday Night Live alumni from what I’ve read). The film is going to include gross-out gags like ghost vomit in the form of slime (20 seconds in), awkward pieces of dialogue that undercut an expected epic line from a lead character in ironic fashion (1:00 in), and, to my personal dismay, Leslie Jones’ Patty as the loud angry black woman #4 (1:25). The majority of the comedy featured in the trailer doesn’t necessarily appeal to me, but it looks somewhere in the range of mediocre to serviceable.

katemcholtzmann

As for the broad appeal of the film, two of director Paul Feig’s previous films are Bridesmaids and Spy, which have scores of 90% and 94% respectively on Rotten Tomatoes, both “Certified Fresh.” 

There’s only one mindset that I infer would facilitate people seeing this film as distressingly appalling or abhorrent, because Ghostbusters ’16 won’t be… ♦

AS GREAT OR LEGENDARY AS GHOSTBUSTERS ’84

♥ Seriously, anyone who compared this film to the original ’84 film was setting themselves up for disappointment. To focus this blurb, we’ll talk about what the comedy genius of ’84 was grounded in.

Most comedies simply write funny things for characters to say. Instead, ’84 had four principle characters and each with distinct personalities. The writers then created genuine dialogue for these characters: words they would use, inflections they would truly exhibit. The comedy came from the organic interplay between the characters and how authentic the characters felt. Disclaimer: The video below features clips from Ghostbusters 2 as well, which didn’t work as well as the original, in my opinion. Give a listen:

Notice, at about 35 seconds in, there is nothing inherently funny about someone’s hobby being that he “collects spores, molds, and fungus.” However, it’s funny because the character of Egon Spangler, played by the late Harold Ramis, or a real person like Egon, would say something or have a hobby like that. It’s believable.

At about three and a half minutes in, Peter Venkman, portrayed masterfully by Bill Murray, says that he’ll go back to Sigourney Weaver’s Dana’s apartment to “check her out,” soon after claiming that he meant to say “check out her apartment.” Because Venkman is written as a sleazy, quippy, gameshow host-like scientist, this line sounds authentic.

I could do this analyses for basically every line in ’84, but instead I’ll cite the scene about 3:50 into the video. Winston Zeddmore, played by Ernie Hudson, is the everyman character. He’s the “audience surrogate,” meaning that he’s our connection to what’s happening on the screen. If written well, these characters should say and think what we do as the audience. Winston recounts the point that the plot has gotten to, almost with disbelief, since things have gotten fairly unbelievable. Egon listens intently to everything Winston stated and out of everything he says, he comments on the fact that Winston said “Babylonian” instead of “Samarian.” Again, a genuine reaction.

Seriously, I felt like these guys could have actually been friends and colleagues in real life.
Seriously, I felt like these guys could have actually been friends and colleagues in real life.

The ’84 Ghostbusters film was probably written as: “Let’s write four distinct characters, give them authentic things to say, and make their reactions to what’s happening genuine.” The comedy in the ’16 film seems to be the following: “We found four funny women so let’s write funny things for them to say and do.” ♥

Either way, I’m curious to see what the final product looks like come July 2016 when Ghostbusters 2016 (ugh…) hits theatres. And if you haven’t seen the original Ghostbusters films (which is surprising if you read this far having not), give them a view!

You can read this post and others like it at JonRoyalty’s blog at JonathanMKing.Wordpress.com and follow him on Twitter @JonRoyalty