Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016) ***

Hot on the heels of Marvel, Batman v Superman is a planned set-up/reboot film to launch the DC cinematic universe, because we need more comic book based films. What better catalyst than having your two most iconic figures at each other's throats for 2 plus hours while throwing in other characters to slowly build the Justice League.

In the aftermath of Superman's (Henry Cavill) battle in Metropolis the country has become town between those that worship the visitor and those who see him as a menace. Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who witnessed one of his buildings filled with employees destroyed in the epic fight and grows to loathe the power that Superman wields. This animosity builds to the point that they are bound to battle each other at some point in the film. Throw in the mysterious Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and the evil mastermind Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg).

To address the topic, I had my reservations about Ben Affleck playing Batman. Daredevil still lingers on every one's minds and I feared that the choice for the Caped Crusader would pull the film down. Much to my surprise, Affleck steps into the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman and actually does a great job with it. His cynical, middle aged take on the Dark Knight is different from Christopher Nolan's vision of a panther-like Batman. Affleck is like a tank with some sweet moves. Paired with Alfred (Jeremy Irons) Batman segments of the film are fun.

As for Cavill, he plays Superman the same as the last movie. I can't really complain, but he seems to brood more than Batman, causing a real dislike to develop of the character. We'll get to the writing in a moment.

I wish I could say more about Gal Gadot, but she only has a few scenes and a few lines. When she is on screen she gives an Amazonian presence that is needed to project Wonder Woman. She is probably the most under utilized talent in this film. 

This brings me to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I'll say it, this is one of the worst casting decisions since John Wayne played Genghis Khan. This role was wasted on him. There's no other way to describe it. When he was on screen he took me out of the movie.

Probably the biggest flaw in this film is the story structure. There is way to much going on, making me wonder why this wasn't split into two films. Two admissions equal twice the $, so let's do it. The early sequences with Batman are great and during the length of the film I kept thinking that this would make a great Batman movie. When we cut to Superman plot points the film drags, like putting the brakes on. Where we had fun with Batman, we were in the doldrums elsewhere. Slowly, as the film begins to blend the two together the film dissolves into basic writing bordering on camp. The first half of the film is much stronger than the second half. Wonder Woman's role gets no real explanation and Lex Luthor's motivation is so convoluted that you wonder what the point of it all happens to be. The script is a definite take the good, take the bad moment.

Adding it all up, Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman is an acceptable film. There are worse films and there are better. This would have been a wonderful picture if the film had been consistent in quality, but that really denigrates the experience for the audience. Walking out of the theater the crowd was a mixed lot. Some people enjoyed the film, others hated it and let their opinion be heard. I have to say the movie is OK. Just OK. Too bad it could have been so much more.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967) ****

Representing the swan song of Spencer Tracy and solidifying Sidney Poitier’s resume, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner is an examination of the changes going on during the mid to late 1960’s. The film has a very basic premise in which young Joey (Katherine Houghton) comes home from a trip to Hawaii with John Prentice (Poitier) to meet her parents (Tracy and Katherine Hepburn). What follows is the conflicted feelings that go along with the changing times of the 1960’s. John will not marry Joey without the consent of her parents. Her parents are unsure about giving consent, not due to their own racism, but due to the fear of how difficult their life will be as an interracial couple. Added in are the two cents of everyone around the family. True, this can be a comedy at times, but it’s more a look at the old guard facing the new guard.

Directed by the legendary Stanley Kramer, the film represents a kind of social experiment. Let’s drop ‘60’s progressivism on the nuclear family of the 1950’s (although the privileged life of the Drayton’s is far from nuclear). The Drayton’s are not conservative minded individuals, but very left leaning. Still, they fear for their daughter and how that current state of the world would react to them. Tracy delivers his final performance with a flourish and considering his death was imminent brings even greater power to his role. Add to the fact that this is one final pairing with Katherine Hepburn makes it even more bitter sweet. Hepburn also mesmerizes on the screen as the mother giddy over her daughter’s upcoming nuptials, yet fearful at the same time. Once again Poitier proves that he is one of the greatest actors of this era, a witty and likeable presence that thinks things out for the protection of others. The only real negative of the film is Houghton’s performance as Joey, which comes across as very snotty and annoying. Whether it was written this way or not, you can almost feel like maybe John would be better of with not being tied to her in some instances.

I asked myself a question while watching this film. Have we moved forward in the last half century compared to our ideals? In some ways we have. Interracial marriage is not illegal in seven states, as the film reminds us. There’s very little stigma related to it anymore, other than the old school and uneducated. The thing is that it feels like where we have progressed as a society, we’re still slipping in other areas. To avoid making this review an ideology discussion I’ll stop there. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner is a time capsule of the ‘60’s and represents one of the greatest psychological battles of all time. When your ideals come home how are you going to react?

Spectre (2015) ****

Every couple of years we get to go to the movies and hear the immortal words "Bond is back!". It's been 53 years since Sean Connery stepped into the role that he made iconic or made him an icon. That is a debate for a later time. Six Bonds later and the franchise still delivers enjoyable adventures that span the globe (with the occasional dud).

Spectre is officially the 24th film and it really harkens back to the Bond of 30 years ago. The previous three films have built to this point in which Bond (Daniel Craig) has found that there is a huge criminal syndicate called Spectre that has been behind the events going all the way back to Casino Royale. Spectre represents a series of events in which Bond attempts to pull back the curtain and expose the puppet master in the form of Ernst Stravo Blofeld (Christophe Waltz).

What's interesting about Spectre is that after 45 years of legal wranglings James Bond finally gets to face his arch nemesis. Blofeld is a characters that has never been played by the same actor twice and Christophe Waltz is a wonderful return for the character. Cold, calculated evil delivered. Craig once again fits into Bond and exudes that dark, brooding Bond. Some have mentioned the Roger Moore era of Bond being represented in this film, but Craig keeps the film grounded. Each Bond is his own man, yet the same man.

Bringing us to the story, it once again leads to world control. Not from nukes or space stations, but information. We live in an information age. Our bogeymen sit at computer screens now. Who is on the other end of that camera watching you.Bond stories tend to recycle themselves, but amazingly most of them hold up.

Spectre is a very good follow up to the almost perfect Skyfall. What's enjoyable about James Bond films, particularly when comparing films with the Bournes and Mission: Impossibles out there. Each individual Bond film makes its own mark, be it in villains, locales, or general bad assery. Other spy franchise seem to blend together, creating a murky identity when trying to remember what film had this or that happen. Bond has never had that problem and it's one of the many reasons that these films endure and continue to endure.

Rambling About Remakes, Reboots, Re-Imaginings

Before I begin I want to make it clear that I’m not reviewing a trailer. Trailers are advertising and it would be the equivalent of me reviewing a commercial for a steak dinner as opposed to an actual dinner. What’s the point? It was a trailer that’s encouraged me to write some ramblings about a phenomenon that is plaguing Hollywood. I honestly thought the day would arrive where this phenomenon would be out of the worlds cinemas and be a small asterisk in a ledger. I’m overreacting, of course, but I had hoped that the remake happy Hollywood machine would reel in it’s crutch of attempting to “re-imagine” movies to make a few quick bucks. Sadly, I’ve been wrong. It’s bigger and better than ever and continues to fill screens every summer… and fall… and winter… and spring. And the trend is only increasing.

The ugly truth about remakes is that they are quick cash grabs for the studios. The foundation of your film is there and all you have to do is fill it in to deliver at least eighty minutes of screen time. It doesn’t have to be coherent, funny, scary, thought provoking, or GOOD. There’s no need for quality because the studio is going to recoup its investment quickly and quietly, sneaking out of town like a carnival hawker in the dead of the night, pockets filled with cash. You see, the great thing about remakes is that they already have a built in audience and if you can sucker 50% of them to drop their money for a ticket, you’re in. Then there’s people curious because of name recognition. Let’s get some of their money, too. The key is to get that money before word of mouth circulates and the movie is branded as garbage. And those who skipped out are assured to check it out on home video.

So why do we go see them? Are we forever optimistic that we'll get the same feeling that we had when we saw the original?  Are the youth of the world, lacking definitive films to hold on to being forced into taking the scraps from earlier generations of film? It's hard to say. I don't have the answer and will admit to being snookered before (A Nightmare on Elm Street). The plot is there, but the soul is dead. Why am I bothering to watch this when I could be watching the original, superior film. 

Are there good remakes? Yes, particularly John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly. I am a fan of Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, but I would not put it in the same league as George Romero's original vision. But for every one of those films there's another 20 remakes that are garbage. My only explanation for it, citing Carpenter as an example, is that there is a love for the original source material and he wanted to honor it as opposed to a regurgitated mass production. 

By now I'm sure you can guess what prompted this little tirade of mine. I saw the Ghostbusters trailer last week. There's been controversy on both sides. The gender swapping (that I feel is gimmicky, but that's Sony Pictures for you) has caused some very hostile remarks. The thing is that another Ghostbusters movie has been desired for a quarter of a century and this isn't that movie. Does it necessitate the hostile tweets and such? No, of course not. The thing is that now that we tangible footage to look at you can make a preliminary judgement on this reboot. I don't review trailers, but being that I have a film with so much negativity associated with it, I would roll out a trailer with enough scenes to impress my audience and convert some of the non-believers. Let's just say it's not looking good.

I believe it was Martin Scorsese that asked why we don't remake bad movies. Polish them up and make them better than they were instead of having the audacity of thinking we can do a better job. It's not the quality, it's the quantity. I really would like to see some films that wow me without being remakes or sequels or "cinematic universe" members. Hit me out of left field. But there's no money in that.

Deadpool (2016) ****

Being a male that enjoys comic books I have had the privilege of seeing the comic book film grow beyond its cheaply made B movie roots. The exception being the Christopher Reeve Superman films and the Tim Burton Batman films. Otherwise the entertainment universe was blighted with low budget schlock fests. Superman was the lone man standing in the early ‘80’s era that saw other comic heroes like Popeye, Flash Gordon, and The Lone Ranger. Not until Batman would success occur in the comic book genre again and the business really didn’t rev up for another decade after that film. Sure there were film adaptations, but nothing monumental. Eventually franchises would spring forth and as the genre became more and more profitable the concept of “cinematic universe” would rise and have every studio scrambling for their own little universe that would generate dollars. Now we get numerous comic book based films and a market that has become totally saturated with the product. There will be 20+ released between now and the end of the decade and the only way to stand out in such a crowded field is to be different.

Deadpool is a film that stands out. Starring Ryan Reynolds in the title role, Deadpool is the tale of ex-mercenary Wade Wilson, whose life falls to piece with a cancer diagnosis. Wanting to continue his life with girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) Wade signs up for some mysterious scientific experiments that will possibly save his life. After being forced to mutate and being horribly scarred by a mad scientist (Ed Skrein) Deadpool escapes and demands vengeance from the people that ruined him. 

Ryan Reynolds orginally portrayed Wade Wilson in 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a lackluster film that left the Deadpool character as a secondary afterthought. The fact that this film got off the ground at all is really a testament to the people behind it. What further amazes me is that 20^th Century Fox, the studio that gave us the horrible Fantastic Four film last year, allowed the filmmakers on this free reign and even OK’d an R rated superhero film, an oddity in today’s cinematic world. This is where the film succeeds in that it doesn’t have to hold back to make sure the kids can be in the audience, keeping further faithful to the source material. This allows the film to stand out in the sea of comic book films that land on us each year. Deadpool steps away from that plot point and not only pokes fun at itself, but the genre as a whole. References to the original appearance in X-men Origins and Reynolds short lived stint as Green Lantern are placed throughout the film. A bit of a wink at an audience that has crawled thru the last 20 years of comic book film. This film destroys the fourth wall and enjoys every minute of it, as will the audience.

So as we go into the summer of superheroes fighting each other and building our “cinematic universes” we need to let Deadpool stand as a film that can bank on this hot genre while being its own kind of film. I’m truly frightened about what a sequel will look like and you know there will be one, even going so far as dropping him into future X-men movies because of this massive success. Deadpool delivers the goods and doesn’t have to destroy a city or civilization to do it.

Straight Outta Compton (2015) ****

Going into Straight Outta Compton I already had a general idea of the history of N.W.A. I’m not a gangsta rap fan, but I was transitioning between childhood and angry teenager during the same time as their run and I watched MTV. I remembered the riots (there were always riots back then, no matter the genre) and I remember the death of Eazy E. I knew that Ice Cube left and formed Public Enemy. This film filled in those gaps.

This is your straight forward biopic and what’s most striking about it is the how the themes that have played out throughout the annals of music history continued to play out. As a whole, N.W.A. was a great unit that is torn apart by the oldest reason in the record business: money. And it’s not them fighting each other for it (not quite), but how yet another group of young stars is manipulated into giving up their rights because they’re naïve, while the agent or promoter, or the record executive lives high on the hog. That’s the typical story, but the layer that sits on top of that is the environment these guys came from and how they expressed it in their music, even to the point of having to take knocks from the police and competitors. The weight of this brave new world of gangster rap was on the shoulders of these young men.

I’m kind of leery when your subject matter is the producing the film and I think there were a few tid bits that were glossed over, but overall Straight Outta Compton is a great film that details the birth of a new art form as it shows us the business as usual attitudes of the industry.

Marty (1955)*****

Do you remember all of those movies in the 1990’s about someone who didn’t know what they wanted to be or where they wanted to go. There was an emphasis on just hanging out and killing time until the next day to start again or the work their way into the next weekend of killing time until Monday. Marty stands as the originator of this type of plot where a young man has stayed with his mother beyond his years and is just following the current that is life.

The film stars Ernest Borgnine as the title character, a butcher who lives with his mother and hangs out with his buddies at night and on weekends. Even with all of these people in his life, Marty is lonely. He longs to be with a girl; a nice girl. As the film proceeds we follow Marty as he attempts to begin relationships with females that are mainly acquaintances, ships floating by in the dead of the night that you may wonder where they traveled after your encounter, but you’ll never see them again. What happens next is the “when you least expect it” notion kicks in and Marty meets Clara (Betsy Blair) who he becomes enchanted with, even though Clara goes against the world that Marty has created for himself.

Borgnine’s performance is on par with some of the best work of the 1950’s, going well beyond the norms of the era. When Marty is shot down, lonely, excited, you feel it in his performance. You come along on this ride with Marty and it is an emotional roller coaster. It’s a portrayal that will stay with you long after seeing this film. It’s a masterpiece of a performance that won Borgnine a well deserved Academy Award. Those feelings go hand in hand with what you feel as a viewer, particularly when Marty and Clara begin their courtship. You feel those feelings that a person experiences when they meet a person and they like that person, spending hours with them just talking or walking or whatever because it doesn’t matter. You just want to be with that person. It’s a hard feeling to describe and it is something that comes up when reminiscing about that first meeting, but it’s a universal feeling that a person holds onto throughout the rest of their life. Marty captures that moment perfectly. I can’t think of a film that displays that moment and those feelings like Marty does. Usually they end up in slapstick like blah. There is not gimmick or pratfall. This is just two people falling for each other.

Marty is a best picture winner and coming from a time when epics and big names usually won the big prize Marty is a nice little breath of fresh air. It still holds the record as the shortest Best Picture