Alright! Today, in part of the hype train for The Snyder Cut of Justice League on March 18th, I decided to look back and check out his previous DC movies.
Basically, a small but very loud portion of Snyder fans have been claiming his 2013 movie, Man of Steel, and his 2016 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Ultimate Edition as some of the greatest comic book movies/movies of all time. You see these comments all over the place on sites like Instagram, Twitter, and in the comments of YouTube videos related to those movies. So I decided to give it a second shot.
And ... wow... sny hype I did have for The Snyder Cut is gone. These are not great movies. No, they do not reinvent the characters of Batman and Superman. No, they are not dark because they are "realistic." No, they are not underrated masterpieces. But they're also not entirely bad.
Man of Steel
We start off with Man of Steel. After Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy wrapped up, he wrote a screenplay for a new Superman movie after Superman Returns didn't do as well as everyone hoped. He even helped produce it! It is arguably the worst thing his production company has done, but to be fair the competition is Interstellar and Inception.
How do I talk about this movie without bringing up that I don't like the characterization of Superman? As soon as I do that, rabid fanboys can and will find me and tell me I'm just hung up on the Reeve movies, and can't stand to see a realistic take on the character. But I'm going to bring it up regardless! I don't like Superman in this movie. I counted every time he smiled in the movie, and you know how many times the final number was? Five. Once when he flies, twice when talking to his mom, and twice when he talks to Lois Lane. Other than that, this Superman is a Superman of brooding only. He's sad, he's depressed, and he's a constant downer to watch. He's burdened by the weight of his powers and hung up on if he should even bother with humanity.
And, contrary to what the former DC President Diane Nelson will tell you, I did not dislike the movie because I had a "Fixed opinion about who these DC characters are and are not." It's just that a constant blank slab doesn't make a good hero. I had the same criticism for Captain Marvel. Everyone's telling her that she's too emotional, but she never shows emotion. It makes the main character boring, and that's something you should never do.
The majority of Superman's actions and conversations in this movie are about how he can't be Superman, how people will freak out if he shows his power - And they're right, people do freak out. But because everyone is so concerned with what will happen to Superman, no one is asking the following: Where is Clark Kent?
Contrary to pop culture understanding, Superman has three identities: Superman, Clark Kent, and Clark Kent. You have characters like Batman where he's Batman all the time, and his actual mask is the arrogant billionaire Bruce Wayne. Superman's like that in reverse. Superman is a stoic man with god-like abilities and a public persona of confidence and trust. Clark Kent the reporter sells himself short both to avoid his secret identity becoming public and to help him remain grounded in reality. And then there's the real Clark Kent, the one who grew up in Smallville, raised by Martha and Johnathan Kent. That's who Superman is first and foremost. He doesn't need to understand or learn what being human is like, he's human at heart and Kryptonian in power set.
To quote Lois & Clark: "Clark Kent is who I am. Superman is who I can be."
 |
| Lois & Clark was by no means perfect, but it had its moments. |
Man of Steel fails utterly and completely in that aspect. Because all the time spent with Clark Kent is spent talking about how he's Superman, we never really get to know Clark Kent. He and Superman are the same people, defined by their power to fly and be strong. It makes the movie fall prey to Superman's most persistent criticism - that he's not relatable. People claim that his god-like abilities make him unrelatable and Man of Steel does nothing to tamper that. If anything, it just perpetuated the notion that Superman is a god watching from above and a boring character.
With so much focus on whether or not he should use his powers, you never find out why he should use his powers. He's just good for no reason, and he only fights the villain when they threaten the people he knows personally. That's the characterization that makes people think that Superman is boring. Superman is not boring. When done right, he's really, really interesting, and deservedly called one of the greatest comic book characters of all time. When he's done like this, it doesn't feel right. There's no heart here.
Another thing I absolutely hated about this movie was how exaggerated everything was. Was there something wrong with him being some dude who was sent from a dying alien planet? Did we need to know that he was the first naturally born Kryptonian in generations because all the other ones are Matrix babies designed for one purpose? Was there something wrong with Johnathan Kent dying of a simple and relatable heart attack? Did he have to die rescuing a dog from a tornado?
Killing Pa Kent off in such a drastic way completely ruins the "All those things I can do. All those powers. And I couldn't even save him" lesson. In every iterations where Pa Kent dies, Superman learns he can't save everyone, but Man of Steel? No, Superman could easily have saved him with little to no effort. It tries to have him learn that lesson by killing Zod in the finale, but even then there were alternate ways. Snapping his neck shouldn't have been the go-to.
Everything is over-the-top.
 |
| I, like, really hated Pa Kent in this. Really hated him. |
Another thing I really disliked about the movie was that, once again forgetting that Clark Kent is a human, his and Lois's relationship is never fleshed out. For one of the iconic couples of all time, they have no romance, no chemistry, and start randomly kissing in the rubble of Metropolis at the end of the movie. Lois also wasn't particularly sassy in this, which was sad. It's amazing this movie borrowed so much from The Dark Knight Trilogy but left out the humor. Lois could've been Lucius Fox with all the witty one-liners.
But it's not all doom and gloom: I rather liked the first half of the movie. The first hour goes by like a breeze largely thanks to Russell Crowe and the flashback sequences giving a feeling of anticipation for the larger conflict. This is why it was so disappointing when the movie goes full-blast generic action as Superman fights Zod for 40 minutes. He and Zod punch each other around for 40 minutes and destroy most of Metropolis. It had such good pacing right up to that point! Then watching two indestructible beings punch each other in the sky just got stale. There's no sense of weight in the sky.
 |
| Oh, a sky beam, how original. |
To put that into perspective, the final fight in the first Avengers movie was half an hour, and that had six heroes and an entire army of disposable CGI creatures. Avengers: Endgame's climactic battle had 31 characters and twenty minutes of fighting. Man of Steel featured Superman, Zod, and two goons yet takes up 40 minutes. And they don't even break it up, it's mostly just constant punching with a sky beam. It's so much action the movie becomes boring.
But above all else, my biggest criticism, is the perception is that this movie is "dark." This movie's not dark at all. There's nothing in here, storywise, that has darker moments than the TV-PG DCAU. The only dark thing about this movie is that it is literally dark. Hilariously so. It must've been filmed and color graded by a dementor because this takes regular locations that would normally be bright - Antarctica, offices, a military complex, streets, a white interrogation room, Kansas - and makes them dark. It makes everything look like shades of black and gray. In behind the scene videos, the suit is actually pretty colorful, but in the movie, it looks two shades away from black, The Daily Planet is an office building. Why on earth does it have one light bulb? Does OSHA not exist in this universe?
 |
| Come to think of it, the brightest part of the movie was a printer saying it was low on color. |
The only actually dark moment in this movie was when Superman snapped Zod's neck, and even that wasn't dark. That was just stupid. Superman killing Zod was just a cherry on top of a Superman movie where Superman doesn't care about the destruction or damage he causes, and the movie suffers because of it. The original draft of the movie had Zod being sent back to the Phantom Zone. Zack Snyder interfered in the original vision of the movie, changed it because he felt like it wasn't satisfying enough, and decided to have Superman snap Zod's neck (A decision that Christopher Nolan was against).
And this movie is also not "Dark because it's realistic." As we've already covered, the movie isn't even dark. It's serious. It's just filmed darkly, which, ironically, makes it unrealistic. An actual street in a city would be bursting with color. An actual office building would have more of a yellow/white color scheme. And why exactly are we expecting our movie about an alien allergic to a rock to be realistic in the first place? There's inherent silliness that comes with the notion of superheroes, and unless you're the Punisher, it's best to own it. Man of Steel is a superhero movie ashamed to be a superhero movie, rejecting the notions of color, altruism, and levity.
 |
| Why so serious? |
Being completely serious doesn't make a movie more grown-up or more mature. Superman's not a completely serious character.
Another thing that rubs me the wrong way is the Snyder fandom. A majority of people thought it was average to a dumpster fire, and most agreed the final fight was too long and Superman killing Zod was an odd choice. But others have defended it vehemently, calling it the best comic book movie and an underrated masterpiece. It's not either of those things, it just has a strangely passionate fanbase that can and will harass you. (People who don't like Man of Steel area a "Pretentious Superman fan and DC hater" claims a commenter on Hans Zimmer's soundtrack uploads).
 |
| Just because something better exists doesn't mean you have to attack it. |
But did I like anything about the movie? Like I said, the first half of the movie was actually pretty great. All the stuff on Krypton was surprisingly cool, the nonlinear storyline made it interesting, and the pacing made it fly by. Zack Snyder does what he does best by being the server for some very cool visual cues, and Henry Cavill is actually a fantastic choice for the character. In every interview, he exudes passion and charm perfectly suited for the character. It's a shame he was apparently told to take it down to zero for the movie and play it straight the entire time. Plus the dude's built like a brick wall.
The biggest saving grace of the movie was Hans Zimmer's score, which was utterly fantastic and had several leitmotifs sprinkled throughout. I might not have liked what I saw on screen, but I was definitely vibing to the music. A week after and the main theme is still flying through my head. It's a good theme.
Overall, I give Man of Steel a 4/10. "A beautiful score courtesy Hans Zimmer does not make up for the pretentious and disappointing slog known as Man of Steel."
 |
| #That'sMySuperman |
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition)
Let's face it. When we saw Batman v Superman in theaters, we were all... underwhelmed. Two and a half hours of intricate setup for the titular final fight that takes 10 minutes, and then a tacked-on Doomsday? Lucky for us, there's an Ultimate Edition that comes with thirty minutes of extra footage and an R-Rating to smooth everything over and turn it into yet another underrated masterpiece from DC maestro Zack Snyder. Unfortunately, Well, unfortunately, the Ultimate Edition is none of those things. It's the same stupid movie but now three hours long. Contrary to what the fans will tell you, nothing substantial changed other than people being shot with minimal blood.
The first thing right off the bat that I noticed in BvS was that the lighting problem was fixed. The Daily Planet suddenly looks like an actual building that has working lights, the outside was bright, the Batcave of all things actually had some pretty nice colors (Tan/gray/black). Even the final fight, which took place at night, was still visible.
The only scenes that reverted back to the Man of Steel lighting were any scenes with Lois Lane or Clark Kent, where they apparently forgot to pay the electric bill for their apartment. And speaking of Lois and Clark, I still was not feeling it. At the end of the day, the reasons for them liking each other are no different than any other blockbuster - they're attractive leads. There's no development to their relationship, they just are an iconic comic couple so they have to be romantically involved in the movie.
 |
Honestly, this could easily have been the best live-action version of Batman we've ever seen. I love the Nolan films to all get out, but Battfleck could've been something extraordinary. Something even darker with better fight choreography and a more comic-y Gotham City to protect.
 |
| That's an epic shot. |
But we also have to address the elephant in the room - Batman killing. Get ready for a super in-depth explanation where I looked way too hard into the movie when the director himself said they killed because they don't "live in a f***ing dreamworld." If you'll recall, Batman only has one rule: He does not kill. This movie made the interesting choice to disregard his one rule, which preemptively makes the story silly and pisses off fanboys. If Batman kills, why is the Joker still alive in this universe?
And Batman killing isn't already bad, it's the way he does it: He literally has machine guns built into his vehicles that he readily mows down low-level goons with. It's so un-Batman-like. And he brands criminals with a flaming hot Bat symbol!
What?
Like.... what?
 |
| This is dark, but not unnecessarily so. |
And, yes, the other Batmen do kill. But if Michael Keaton's Batman jumped off a cliff, would you? I see this said all the time: "Bale killed all those guys in Ra's al Ghul's monastery!" There's a huge difference between a younger Bruce Wayne blowing up a monastery full of highly trained ninjas who are about to destroy Gotham as opposed to an older Batman brutally mowing over low-level goons with a machine gun. And, yes, Batman did kill back when he first appeared in comics. But the "No Kill" rule has been a part of his mythos since, like, the 1940s. And if you're citing the first appearance of Batman, why isn't he rocking the purple gloves?
 |
| #ReleasethePurpleGlovesCut |
However, this movie does two things to completely negate any impact this scene may have had, reducing it to iconic cringe cinema. The first is to have Superman and Batman instantly get over any disagreements they may have had. Yes, it works to make Batman not kill Superman, but why does he instantly trust him? Bruce himself says: "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him." Clark having a mother does nothing to make that any less of a certainty.
It just makes Batman realize that his "You were never a god... you were never even a man!" way of thinking was wrong because Superman has now suddenly become humanized. He might even be more human than Bruce himself.
 |
The second is that because Batman does kill, everything I just said about it working is completely thrown out the window. If Batman kills people both before and after the "MARTHA!" moment, then the only difference between Superman and any of the other goons that Batman killed is that Superman has a mother. That's the only difference. And, again, his having a mother does nothing to negate his godlike abilities to destroy humanity.
We probably would've gotten over the instantaneous bond of Batman and Superman, because the movie's gotta movie, but showing a Batman without morals just actively works against the movie. In my opinion, the "MARTHA!" scene deserves any and all ridicule it gets. I get what they're trying to do, but they failed on everyone conceivable level. And the execution is hilarious.
 |
| You were literally trying to kill him two minutes ago. |
Bottom line, the scene is stupid, and Battfleck killing people works against the movie and prevents him from being the best Batman we've ever seen. Another huge distractor for the entire movie was Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. Holy sardines, this was a terrible Lex Luthor. Just the worst possible Lex. Lex Luthor should basically be human Thanos - a reasonable but intimidating bald guy who always has a plan and always gets what he wants.
This is decidedly not that. In fact, it's probably the single biggest blight in the movie. The "MARTHA!" scene would be dumb enough to almost be endearing if the fanbase weren't so toxic. Batman's killing wasn't the main emphasis of the movie and only happened a few times. But Luthor? Luthor is all over the place. He's behind everything with a plan ripped straight out of word association.
 |
| wheelchair.... Jolly Rancher... pee |
This is not so much Lex Luthor as it is a cartoon Riddler or Heath Ledger-lite (That really bothered me by the way, the improv mannerisms and speech patterns that all seemed ripped from Ledger). It seemed like they were going for worst-case scenario Mark Zuckerberg, but that doesn't work for Lex Luthor - or maybe it would, but not the way it's done here.
And let's just throw this in there for good measure: For all the hate the MCU movies get for their pop culture references and humor, none of them have made me cringe harder than Batman v Superman's awkward The Wizard of Oz reference and Luthor's fundraiser speech.
There are, like, six movies worth of material in here. Batman versus Superman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Wonder Woman, introducing the Justice Leauge, a Batman who lost his way, conflicted Superman, Man of Steel 2, Battfelck solo movie - and the movie tries its darndest to juggle them all, even if it physically can't, and at the very least not delve into them all as deeply as they should be.
 |
| Not only was Doomsday hamfisted in, but look at that design... that's disgusting. "He understands the characters so well!" |
Also, this is the type of movie where Jimmy Olsen is an operative who gets shot in the first 10 minutes and they kill the wrong Robin. That should give you an idea of what type of direction we're working with here - no matter what people say, at the end of the day stuff just happens because it 1) look cool, and 2) is a man child's idea on how to make superheroes appealing to adults. It's the little stuff like that and Batman killing that makes me think they're not really trying to deconstruct the characters but are instead trying to get the coolest possible shots and accidentally disregarding 75 years of history for them.
However, I didn't hate all of it. The first two hours, while slow, are enjoyable. The subtle uses of the Man of Steel theme sprinkled throughout were fantastic. The casting for these movies is strangely fantastic - Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Jeremy Irons - they're all class acts in these roles. If the movies had proper direction and less convoluted plots, these would easily be the definitive versions of these characters. But alas, this is what we are left with. A less than average movie with a strangely passionate fanbase.
Overall, I give Batman v Superman: Ultimate Edition a 5/10. "I see what they were going for. Shame it failed in every conceivable way."
 |
| Cool idea, bad execution. |
Comments
Post a Comment