Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Review

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.
Reviewing a film like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is tough.    It is tough because no matter how hard you try you have a number of personally biases that always expose themselves.   Add to it you really do not want to ruin it for the people that haven't seen the film yet.   Yes we even got a trailer from Zack Snyder imploring us to keep the spoilers to ourselves.

I did not like Man of Steel.  Saying I disliked the film is not correct, probably loathed, hated, detested, or despised is more accurate.   I had a long litany of complaints with that film.  I also did not appreciate Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy in the same way many other did, I am more of an Adam West kind of Batman fan. 
I have enjoyed a good number films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  I am not saying they are Oscar worthy and some are better than others.  We could talk about the X-Men Universe but …  And oh yeah did I mention I was really disappointed by Green Lantern.    Now that you know my biases let’s move into the actual review.

In essence Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice [BvS] is a great comic book or graphic novel, that doesn’t translate to the big screen or rather wasn’t translated to the big screen very well.   If you read comics you are used to the way that overarching story arcs can cross multiple titles and have multiple points of view.    Zack Snyder and Chris Terrio attempted to do just that, tell a movie like a cross over comic book story arc.   It makes it very difficult to follow the various sub-plots and stories; some reviews have suggested it is like watching 3, 4, or 5 films spliced together to tell a single film.    That is a failure of the narrative structure of the film.   Peter Jackson does this particularly well with the Two Towers and Return of the King.  

The scriptwriters never truly decides who the audience is for this film.    Pixar is great at writing stories on two levels, both adults and children can find interesting aspects to the film that appeals to them.   Comic Book Movies are similar as there are two distinct separate audiences, people who know more about the characters than the writers and people who know nothing other than maybe the film title when they enter the cinema.   Chris Terrio went for the ultimate compromise, right down the middle of the two extremes.   Occasionally they would explain some things and other times they assumed you as an audience knew everything that was going on.   Neither shall the two extremes meet.   So as an audience you ask why sub-plot X was explained and sub-plot Y not even addressed.   What, hey huh…     When you are done with the film you still don’t understand.  

JK Rowling is a great minimalist author.   She has the understanding that if it isn’t necessary to further the story than it doesn’t make the cut.   When the development team of BvS were writing, filming and editing they needed to better use the ideas behind the minimalist nature of storytelling.     There is so much extraneous detail in the film it interrupts the flow of the film, knocking the viewer out of the immersion that they worked so hard to create.

When you combine telling a comic book story and not defining your audience you create a night mare for the editor.   I feel bad for David Brenner, the Films Editor, as he was given the awful task of assembling this film.  Since David Brenner has done some outstanding editing in the past Born of the Fourth of July and Independence Day come to mind, one truly must question the source material he was working with.  There is a scene at the end of the film that has outstanding editing and I wanted to scream “why wasn’t the rest of the film so well assembled.”

Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL (Tom Holkenbourg) provide a decent score (soundtrack) for the film.   I don’t think it was the best work of either men but it is far from the worst.

The film felt incomplete, many of the CGI effects needed another pass, and a couple left you wondering how the heck that made it into a $250 Million dollar film.   There were several sub-plots that never received closure, and I am not talking the steps towards Justice League, but rather the side story plots that were set up and simply forgotten.

I don’t understand the lack of humor in Zack Snyder’s DC view.   I don’t mean the quips from MCU but there are moments when the film strives to set up a joke and then forgets to add the punchline.  So when Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) attempts to land a one liner the audience doesn’t know how to take it.   You are like was that supposed to be a joke?     

I still believe that Henry Cavill was completely miscast as Clark Kent, he lacks the gravitas to play the part.    I know it is hard to follow Christopher Reeves, but he just doesn’t click and people don’t go he is Superman.  

Ben Affleck plays a decent Bruce Wayne and an acceptable Batman.   I totally understand why people think he deserves a stand-alone film, and had he a film under his belt as the Caped Crusader no one would have questioned his choice, but it took a while to grow into it, and it is easy to see which parts were filmed first.  

Gal Gadot is Diana Prince and people will be holding out lots of hope for her stand-alone movie.   I don’t necessarily think she stole the show like some have claimed, it more like the got the casting so perfect with her it makes the other castings very questionable.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther was too much like Heath Ledger as the Joker and not enough like Gene Hackman as Lex Luther.  

I really liked all of the secondary characters in the film, Amy Adams as Lois Lane is exceptional in the part.  Holly Hunter, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, and Diane Lane all deserve kudos.

I am going to borrow something from another reviewer.  There is a good movie here, it is just frustrating we don’t get to see it.  Maybe there will be a director’s cut that fixes many of the problems, maybe the CGI will look better on the 60" TV at home, maybe the things that need explained are explained.   

People who are comic book fans will have an opportunity to like this film, people who aren’t will, I am going to use “hate it” but that is not quite right.   How about “Fail to appreciate it” in the same way comic book fans will.
 
I walked into the theater expecting to hate the film and walked out wishing I could like it more.    There are just too many problems holding this film back.

1 ½ stars out of five and it is too bad I cannot give it more stars.

Box Office Predictions - Batman v. Superman

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Predictions Opening Weekend

  • Domestic - $139
  • International - $175
  • World Wide -   $314
Total Box Office
  • Domestic - $331
  • International - $350
  • World Wide - $681
Here is the deal.   Domestically the math in my formula suggests two tracks $130 M and $317 M OR $149 M and $382, when you look at comparable films, competition, timing, audience fatigue, early hype, and late hype.  The formulas aren't full proof (or I would be working for Hollywood) but generally they have been fairly close more times than they have been wrong.  

Let's be honest none of those are big numbers, but they are on the same tracking that many Hollywood insiders have suggested over the past month.   And its not good news for WB and DCU.  Matter of fact it is the opposite of good news.

The very early hype for this movie was extremely negative even some of the movies biggest defenders were not wiling to put too much effort into defending the movie until about six months ago.   Over the last six months people have been climbing on board and suggesting it could be a great movie.    That all went out the window when the first professional reviews hit the news stand.

Currently on Rottentomatoes.com the BvS is sitting at 42% overall and 35% with its top critics, metacritic has it at 47 and other scoring has it in a similar place.   This is all below the rankings of every film in the MCU and only X-Men: Origins Wolverine scored lower in the X-Men Universe.   It is on par with the First Fantastic Four iteration.     In terms of the DCU it is lower than Man of Steel, Nolan's Trilogy and it is slightly higher than Batman and Robin, Catwomen and Green Lantern.
All movies that it has score similar to had biggest day on Friday and slight down Saturday and than down further on Sunday.    In addition all those movies made between 36% and 47% of their total domestic box office on the opening weekend.

If you can ignore the critics ratings, the formula has a different track.   Without the negative reviews I think BvS would earn $179 M domestical and $375 M world wide opening weekend.

Daredevil Season 2 Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Star Wars Episode VIII

Posted by Jeff Labels:


Deadpool - Box Office Review - Part 1

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,

Okay, so I (and everyone else for that matter) missed the boat when it came to predicting the Box office for Deadpool over the past weekend.    I predicated Deadpool would take in $67 M for the three day weekend and my predictions were in line with most other predictions.   A few Hollywood insiders, specifically those who work for the rival studios, suggested that Deadpool may bring in $80 to $85 M over the three weekend.
Box Office totals for weekend stand at an estimated $135 M 132.7 M USD, making it the largest Febuary Release to date, the largest Rated R release and yes the largest release by 20th Century Fox, with the caveat that Star Wars films weren't released on Friday.
 
How did I and everyone else blow this prediction, and by blow I mean miss it by 100%?
 
Starting at the beginning, even though discussions on a Deadpool film go back nearly a decade it was until recently the project moved forward.  Jim Gianopulos as Chairmen and CEO of 20th Century Fox Pictures green lit the project with a modest $58 M USD budget during the summer of 2014.   All previous released X-Men films were green lighted by the former Co-Chairmen of 20th Century Fox Pictures Tom Rothman, Jim Gianopulos replaced Tom Rothman on January 1, 2013.   Tom Rothman was noted for his hands on approach to film making and his dislike of Superhero Movies.   Under Tom Rothman's leadership of 20th Century Fox would never had made Deadpool, it was too risky and had too many characteristics that Rothman identified as failings of the Superhero Genre.  Fox domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson spoke about this  "Deadpool is wildly creative and new, and that’s what audiences want, I think a lot of credit goes to Jim Gianopulos for having the courage to make this movie."
 
That modest budget of $58 M USD, well when Tim Miller and Ryan Reynolds were pitching the film in late spring and early summer they were asking for $65 M USD.   20th Century Fox made the two heroes of our story an offer they couldn't refuse, figure out how to make the movie for $7 M USD less than what they figured was the absolute floor.   Less than 24 hours later our cast of misfits agreed, including Tim Miller, Ryan Reynolds, and the two principal writers Rheet Reese and Paul Wernick, amongst others, I assume Lauren Shuler Donner and Simon Kinberg were also involved.   I am not sure what was cut from the film, but I am guessing it involved a couple of CGI scenes.
 
20th Century Fox took a huge risk with an R-Rated superhero film.   The previous attempts were generally unsuccessful.  The Blade Trilogy, another Marvel property released by New Line Cinema, achieved decent success in the late 1990s and early 2000s.   However films like the Punisher, 300: Rise of an EmpireWatchmen and Kick-Ass all basically flopped.   The general line of thinking has been to make money you need to be PG-13, R-Rating kills the potential for success.   Even a successful film like Mad Max: Fury Road failed to turn a profit in its domestic release.
 
Ultra Violent films over the past decade have not been successful, either domestically and more importantly internationally.   While the US has sexual taboos most countries have violence taboos that limit films success.
 
So here is 20th Century Fox Pictures green lighting a Ultra Violent, Rated R Superhero movie where the hero isn't a hero and he talks to the audience.  Add to that the movie is scheduled for release in the cold of winter on a weekend that is usually reserved for dates at the theater, the lead actor while incredibly personable and likable has never been a leading man in a financially successful film and you are not going to have many other notable names in the film either.    For those that follow the industry it seems improbable at best.
 
Not only does 20th Century Fox green-light a movie they allow the principal actor, Ryan Reynolds, almost free reign to promote this movie on social media, and then decide it working so well lets take it further.  
 
With the success of the film its hard to imagine that it was even suggested doing a straight Superhero film, but that was what most in Hollywood thought they should do.   The leadership for the project did something else, they listened to the Fans and gave them exactly what they wanted.   They didn't try and create a new story or change the origin of the character or alter the character, just a simple Deadpool story.   The fans have Tim Miller to thank for this.   You know that released Deadpool test footage, created by Blur Studios, which happens to be lead by Tim Miller, provide that the fans wanted a crazy loco Deadpool, when it was "leaked" online. 
 
So 20th Century Fox made a crazy, ultra violent, sarcastically, R-Rated film, that the fans wanted, that still doesn't explain how the film earned $135 M USD domestically on its opening weekend.
 
There are other factors.  
Weak Competition for the opening weekend.   This is an important factor, almost as important as not having a true romantic comedy (or romantic film) on the slate.    How to be Single is more of a comedy with a female lead than a romantic comedy and it really opened the doors to the suggestion of taking in Deadpool on a date.   In addition the other new release Zoolander 2 scored very low on rottentomatoes.com and the closest thing to a hold over in the genre is the 9th weekend of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Valentine's Day fell of Sunday.   Had Valentine's Day fell on Saturday, before the very strong word of mouth broke for Deadpool, then the Female Comedy How to be Single probably gets a big bump and Deadpool drops.  
 
It should not be overlooked that Deadpool is a good movie.   It received an A rating from Cinemascore, an 85% favorable rating on Rottentomatoes.com and decent score of 65 on Metacritic.   It is not Shakespeare by any stretch of the imagination but it does have a solid score/soundtrack, a pretty good cinematography, and the editing isn't bad either.   I could also mention the acting and directing, and a script that was a very much a change of pace from the aspect of the story being told.
 
So you have a perfect storm, a film fans want to see, weak completion, a solid reviews and great word of mouth.  

Deadpool - Box Office Prediction

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,

Comparable Movies - $45 to 55 Million

Competition - 0
Calendar - $10 Million
Movie Fatigue - 0*
Hype - 15%

Prediction $67 M
 
There are many in Hollywood that are predicting this movie may make a run at the largest February movie opening - Fifty Shades of Grey which $85 M last year.   Several Hollywood insiders suggest the film is tracking at $81 M.    I don't want to get to caught up in these big numbers because the film would have to upwards deviate from its track by 22% which is hard to see.
 
We should be able to tell where Deadpool is tracking by Friday morning with the Thursday previews.   I'm expecting the Thursday previews to run in the $12.5 M range, a deviation in either direction of $2.5 should tell us where the movie will ended up.  
 
Here is my take, first this is one of the first Imax films for 20th Century Fox, with ticket prices roughly double that of standard films.   The fanbois are all in for the extra $8 a ticket, but how many non-fanbois are willing to spend that kind of money?   It doesn't have a real 3-D version, so there is no in-between.
Looking at past results and making an guesstimate we can derive a number of between $10 and $17 M in Imax, for my estimate I am going with $14M.   As an aside Imax records $30 Star Wars: The Force Awakens, $20 Jurassic World, $18 Avengers: Age of Ultron.    
 
The second option for the audience is a standard 2d film.  This is where the prediction gets difficult.   Without a 3d option for the audience your left looking at the film making $53 M in that category.    If the film had a 3d option this number would be roughly $67 M and $81 would make total sense. 
 
What about your past predictions of Deadpool in the $35 M range?  
Good Question, I am glad I asked.   My last public prediction for Deadpool was in April of 2015, almost a year ago.   About a month ago I upped my prediction from $35 to $55 M internally and today as we close in on the opening I upped it again to $67
Rated R comic book (or similar) movies generally open in the $17.5 to $35 M range depending on the quality of the film.  There was little reason to believe that Deadpool would deviate from that norm prior to updates about a month ago.  Since then it has earned a solid 80 plus score on rottentomatoes.com, 64 on Metacritic.com and hey marks from early showings  all of those are substantial higher than the other rated r movies I used in tracking. 
There hasn't been very little bad or negative hype about this movie.   That is pretty unusual considering the source material, its rating and studio.
 
 

Review - Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,

At 7 PM central on Thursday December 17th I caught a midnight showing of Friday's release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens - SWTFA for short.   Yeah, it's complicated. 
Here's the deal.  I would like to make this review as spoiler free as possible, but it wouldn't be a very good review.  There will be some references to the movie and some will be contextual, but if you haven't seen the film you have been warned everything in here is a potential spoiler.

In case you missed the warning spoilers. I am going to talk about what happens in the movie.  If you are not apart of the 32 Million Americans who saw this movie already and care about what happens stop reading.   You have been warned.

Quick Commentary

Reviews of the SWTFA by movie going masses probably mirror that of the critics.   Five percent of the audience are probably not happy with the film (thumbs down), ten to fifteen percent will give the film mixed reviews and the remaining eighty to eighty-five percent will give the movie a solid thumbs up and better. 

One of my favorite review was from a gentlemen who usually reviews Shakespeare's plays in Europe, in which he basically wrote, not my cup of tea but my boss said I had to review the film.  He of course is not in the 95% of reviewers that generally like the movie.

Regardless of where most reviewers came down I think they all have some very valid points.   I clearly fall into the ten to fifteen percent of people who have very mixed emotions about this film.  I liked the film overall and think the people who put the film together did a fairly decent job; however I think this film could have been galactically awesome had circumstances allowed it.

I am going to rip into the heart of this movie, not because I think it was a bad movie, rather because it teetered on greatness and fell short.  Its like looking at the silver medal and thinking about how you lost gold rather than what an achievement a silver medal is.

The Bean Counters at Disney!

The biggest flaw to SWTFA is most likely directly pointed at the actuaries in Disney's accounting office.   To maximize profit the film needed to fit into a very tight time window.   If you include the trailers at the beginning of the movie, the public service like commercials for the theater, the movie itself, and the amount of time to change over a theater to show the movie again (people out, clean, people in) you have approximately 3 hours if you want to show the film 5 times per day per screen.    In that three hours you have 2 hours and 15 minutes for the film.   SWTFA clocks in at 2 hours and 16 minutes.  Needless to say there is not a whole lot of additional time, if any at all, to keep SWTFA in that 3 hour window needed to show a movie 5 times.   Even one or two additional minutes of film could have resulted in the window being 3 hours and 15 minutes and reducing the number of showings to 4 at some/many or all screens depending on who you talk to.

How does that decision effect the movie?   It is clearly evident in the editing of the film.  Numerous scenes lack flow within the film.  One in particular during the light of the dying sun,  the scene, the music score and the importance of the act do not necessarily sync properly.  Through out the movie there a dozen plus scenes in which a few seconds here and there seemed to be shaved off each of them.  
The transition from one scene to the next in many instances is abrupt and lacks the smoothness typical of Oscar winning films; for the lack of a better way to describe it.  A few were done by choice others seemed forced.
These edits clearly effect the ebbs and flow of the film.

The editing appeared to effect the timing of the score; like the score was written for a slightly longer movie and then edited to fit the shorter box.

Beyond the Ebb and Flow of the film there are several entire scenes removed from the final cut.  There is some question on when many of the scenes were cut from the movie, but three in particular have been identified.

The movie was to originally open with the Battle of Jakku.  The battle occurs 1 year and 4 days after the battle of Endor, in the Star Wars timeline and was Grand Admiral Akbar's greatest victory.   To me personally that 5 minutes worth of film should have better connected the original trilogy with the latest films and provided much context for the films backstory.
A second scene provided back ground on Captain Phasma and the rise of the First Order. 
A third scene involved Chewbacca and Rey and explained why Chewbacca and Rey became a "team" at the end of the film.
Those are three scenes that I know of that were left on the cutting room floor, what other scenes are there?   J.J. Abrams has acknowledged that 20 minutes of near completed film was cut to bring the film down to 2 hours and 16 minutes.   Another 40 minutes worth of story was filmed, so is it a 60 minutes or 40 minutes of additional story?

Definition of Insanity!

It is never explained why the First Order is attempting to use the same blue print to control the Galaxy as the Empire, which failed, twice.   It is for all intensive purposes a huge plot hole large enough to fly a Super Star Destroyer sideways.  

There are a number of plot holes in the film, the biggest one being its basically a copy of two films smashed together.  

Its all about the Characters.

We are introduced to some new characters and reintroduced to some old characters.   Not everyone of these characters works in this film; and for different reasons.

Before jumping into this on a deeper level I have a disclaimer to put out.  I have read all of the former cannon materials, supposed treatments of the final trilogy of movies by George Lucas, and pieced together things that were cut from this movie from all the interviews everyone has done.   So I am not just talking about what's on the film, but in many cases what isn't.
In the original script (supposedly it was changed after principal filming was concluded) Poe Dameron, played by Oscar Isaac, sacrificed himself by crashing his X-Wing into the Starkiller base to destabilize the weapon.   When the end of the story was changed it didn't change his story arc during the movie.   I understand why he wasn't killed off but it should of had a ripple effect through the story, it didn't.  As he is now a "principal" character he is very much under utilized through out the movie.   I am in many ways reminded of Wedge Antillies in the original trilogy.

FN-2187 - aka Finn - played by John Boyega is the most complete character in the film.  I wouldn't be shocked to discover that I some of the earlier drafts of the film he was the primary character on who the story centered upon.

Rey - aka Mary Sue - played by Daisy Ridley.  Here is the deal, if Finn was the most complete character in this film, Rey is the most incomplete.  Don't get me wrong that may be done on purpose so it could be explored in the next films, but it was really disheartening considering she became the primary vehicle in telling this story.  
So why did I call he a Mary Sue?   Let start by explaining what a Mary Sue is in terms of writing.  A Mary Sue (or Gary Sue if the character is male) is a character inserted into a story that is too perfect, too good at everything.   These characters are extremely popular in Fan Fiction in which the author inserts a perfect copy of themselves into a story.  What isn't she good at?  
Rey is so good at everything, her character is never truly at risk. This is very much unlike the original trilogy where everyone is always at risk and we bond with those characters because they appear more human.

Ben Solo - Kylo Ren - This is a wonderfully complicated character that almost works perfectly.  The portrayal of this character is so close to perfect it makes the flaws much more apparent. 
To begin with lets start with the name.  Jacen Solo is the character in the books who becomes a Sith Lord (Darth Sideous) and changing his name to Ben distracts from the character.   I understand that they are changing the continuum and wanted to move away from what was formerly cannon, but the name change gnaws at me.
They have all but said the character suffers from a Multiple Personality disorder, but don't quite go that far in the film.  If the character does than do it, if he doesn't well you went too far in demonstrating it.  Like so many things in the film you end up in the grey area when either black or white would have been better. 

Han Solo, if Poe Dameron was underutilized during the film than the opposite is very true for Harrison Ford's character, Han Solo, who is over utilized.  I get it that the story became Han Solo centric when the powers that be decided to kill off Han Solo.   The problem is the film isn't and Han Solo is forced upon us.  There are a number of very good scenes with Han Solo, but too many are simply there for the character to be on the screen as if too remind us how wonderful he is.   In my first viewing I uttered he was a dead-man when he finally hugged Leia.

Each of those characters have a unique and fairly complicated story arc in this film.  It is incredibly ambitious of a filmmaker to try and tell two story arcs in a single film, you could argue that Peter Jackson is one of the only successful filmmakers to do it recently with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.  Here J.J. Abrams is telling four major story arcs and three or four minor story arcs interwoven into a single movie.   SWTFA is mostly successful in telling these various stories.   

General Hux, Captain Phasma, why are they important to the story?  Too little is known about these characters and it also touches upon what we know about the Knights of Ren?   

Failed Cliff Hanger!

WTF was with the end of the movie?  
Why in the name of the force did the Rebel Alliance who has been looking for Luke Skywalker for years allow Rey and Chewbacca to go and find him?  You know two characters who literally walked into their alliance two days prior? 
And that final scene, oh how it doesn't work in film.   Clearly a TV guy wrote that ending because it does work on that medium but not in Movies.   It frustrates movie audiences.   Further it deprived the audience of that moment to clap and cheer.   People kept waiting around for more.   It may have worked as a post credit scene.

Unanswered Questions?

Many sites have compiled lists of unanswered questions ranging from "who is Lor San Tekka?" and "what is the division of power in the galaxy?" Maybe in another post I will break down the questions but the problem remains that there are just too many simple questions that should have been answered. 

Oscar worthy?

Best Picture - Sure to be nominated.  The only category with ten nominations I doubt Star Wars: The Force Awakens will be excluded simply because of the fact it could draw 10 million more viewers to the show.

Best Director - With only five directors to be on the ballot I think chances are J.J. Abrams will not be nominated.   Ridley Scott (The Martian), George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road), and Tom McCarthy (Spotlight) are shoe ins for the ballot.   The remaining two spots sees Todd Haynes (Carol), Alejandro Inarritu (Revenant), Ryan Coogler (Creed) and Adam McKay (The Big Short) duking it out.   

Best Actress - Daisy Ridley performance as Rey in most years would easily garner a nomination and in some years a much closer look.   However this is not most years and just like Best Director category the Best Actress category is stacked with four shoe ins for the nominations and four or five deserving actresses vying for the fifth nomination.

Best Actor in a supporting role - Harrison Ford will receive a lot of consideration for the award.  I would only be mildly surprised if he receives a nomination but not shocked.  Out of the all the major categories I feel this is the weakest in terms of depth this year.

Best Score - John Williams will surely be nominated for what many people believe is his last major project.  With a long history with the academy and many wins and more nominations it is not inconceivable that this score wins one last award for John Williams.

Screenplay - The first problem is what category does this film belong in, original or adapted?   That confusion alone will be enough to keep it from being nominated.

Lesser Categories
Cinematography - Editing - Sound - Costume Design - Production Design - Visual Effects - Hairstyling/Makeup - The academy in recent years has liked more indie style films than large scale epics in almost every one of these instances.  Unless their is a change of heart in the voting booth this year I do not see SWTFA receiving more than a token award.