In Defence of Batman’s Rampant Murder – ‘Batman v Superman’ (Spoilers)

What is the one thing that we all know about Batman? Okay, yes, he has pointy ears and a cape. What is the other one thing we all know about Batman? Batman does not kill (except for here, and many other examples). Sure, after more than 75 years of the character, he’s killed people a few times, but his one rule is known to even casual Batfans. Enter Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a film where Batman kills. A lot.

He kills at least 4 people during the car chase sequence at the docks. He uses a machine gun during the warehouse fight to dispatch at least two others. Using a high-powered rifle, he ignites the KGBeast‘s flamethrower, blowing the Russian sky-high. I liked Batman v Superman, but I had a problem with all of this murder. That’s not my Batman. It’s likely not your Batman, either.

But, having spent some time thinking about it, I’ve come around to the Batmurder. Allow me to present some ideas on why it works in this movie, and why it sets up Batman for the current slate of the DCEU films.

Batman is a tragic figure.

He is not the big blue Boyscout that Superman is. Let’s remember why Batman does what he does. A rich (and entitled, depending on what comic you read) boy of approximately 8 years old, Bruce Wayne saw his parents gunned down in Crime Alley in Gotham City. This broke Bruce, showing him that even his life of happiness and extravagance could be taken away in an instant. Growing up furious, he eventually dedicated his life to doing everything he possibly could to ensure that nobody under his watch would ever suffer similar pain. In doing so, he sacrificed his body and his personal relationships, often avoiding love and family as a means of protecting those that he cared about. That is true tragedy.

The Batman in BvS is truly a broken man.

This film presents a Batman who has been fighting crime (no doubt a thankless, endless task) in Gotham for 20 years. He’s survived the death of Robin (presumably at the hands of The Joker), and is now having to deal with the arrival of a Godlike alien who could “burn the whole place down”. He continues doing what he does because it’s all he knows, but he has lost his way. He’s allowed the grime and the filth to get under his skin, and, once he breaks his one rule, it becomes easier for him to do it again. And again. Not only does he kill, but he brands his victims – a level of cruelty we haven’t seen from Batman in film before now – an act that (because of some manipulation from Lex Luthor) generally gets branded villains murdered in prison.

So, why am I defending all of this murder? Well, it’s really just me having faith in the DCEU (for better or for worse). I could be wrong, but hear me out. My guess is that when Justice League comes along next year, we will see a Batman that doesn’t kill. I believe that Batman is at his most broken and brutal in BvS. Writer Chris Terrio referred to this film as the middle of a trilogy (traditionally the darkest part), with Man of Steel being part one, and Justice League being part three. Batman spends the majority of this film hating and suspecting Superman, only to make peace (for a reason that really could have been better) in the final act to unite the Trinity and take down Doomsday. During this battle, Superman sacrifices himself to save all of humanity.

Batman will find redemption.

Bruce recognizes that Clark acted in an entirely altruistic manner, and is, therefore, reminded of his own past, and his one rule. Clark’s death acts as the impetus for Bruce to revert back to his original and ideal self. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Batman does not brand Luthor at the end of the film.

If (and it’s a big if), Batman does not do any killing in Justice League, then Zack Snyder has given us all a truly exceptional character arc for Batman. We start with a broken, brutal man – a hero who has experienced a fall from grace. However, if Batman does find and embrace his former self in the next film, that would be redemption. Bruce has never forgiven himself for allowing his parents to die, but to redeem himself by not killing Superman (in BvS), and bringing crooks in by-the-book in Justice League, we truly have an heroic redemption.

Unless, of course, Snyder totally messes it up.

What are your thoughts on the current state of the DCEU? Hit the comments below, and let’s discuss!

Update:

Suicide Squad is said to take place after Batman v Superman. In the latter film, Batman takes down Deadshot without force, murder, or branding, saying that he would rather not do it in front of Deadshot’s daughter. This lends credence to the idea that Batman has abandoned his murderous ways and reverted back to his ideal self.

 

In Defence of Seeing Movies Alone – A Rant.

Long before I started reviewing movies (read: long before a couple weeks ago), I decided to ignore the stigma and started seeing flicks by myself.

The stigma: you’re a loser if you go see a movie alone! Don’t you have friends to see a movie with?!

The reality:

1. Seeing a movie alone is a freeing experience. Imagine: the film starts at a given time. You, foolishly, bought all the tickets. Now you’re stuck waiting for your friends, who are habitually late because your friends suck, and now you have to juggle the idea of peeing, or getting popcorn and a coke. There is no winning situation here. You choose to pee, make it back into the theatre shortly after the title credits of the movie you came to see, snack on your friend’s popcorn as the movie gets going, and then you’re just thirsty. Are you going to miss part of the movie to spend five dollars on a coke because your friends were late? NO! YOU ARE NOT! Because this is actually your fault. You could have seen the movie alone.

Imagine: you saunter into the theatre with your printed-at-home ticket. You observe the crowd, do a little mental calculation and devise your plan. Pee first (wash hands thoroughly!), get a coke and a popcorn (that you don’t have to share, by law), and find a seat in the auditorium just as the last commercial fades, and the first trailer fades in. THAT is the power of seeing a movie alone.

2. Sit anywhere. If you’re showing up in time for the trailers, unless it’s opening night of Marvel‘s Squirrelwind: The Avenging Squirrelgirl,

(“Come at me, bro”)

you should still be able to find a seat, outside of the dreaded first few rows. Remember to apologize profusely while climbing across people, and avoid knocking over their refreshments.

3. Don’t talk to me. For the most part, the appreciation of art is a solo venture. Sure, two people can look at a painting or sculpture and discuss what they’re taking from it, but a lot of media (film, television, music, etc.) is experienced within one’s self. You know when you’re jamming to a song, you’re in the zone, and your friend slaps you on the shoulder and asks you where the pizza pockets are (“they’re in the freezer! Did you think you’d find them in the pantry?!”)? That’s what it can be like seeing movies with others.

“Why did this character do this?”

I don’t know. We’ve both seen the exact same amount of movie right now.

The stigma suggests that it’s lame to see a film alone. We’re in a dark room, with a bright picture on one end and sound booming from all around us. We don’t need to have a conversation right now. If you want to have a conversation right now, let’s not go to movies together.

A good movie creates good conversation. Can’t wait to have that conversation with you. Let’s just wait until after the flick, shall we? For those of you that love going to the theatre, hate having to organize people, but feel weird seeing a movie alone… Get over it. Go to the flick. Have a good time. Don’t even worry about it. You do you!

Do you have funny stories of people being goons at the theatre? I have a couple. Share them below in the comments, and let’s discuss!

Bad Moms – Movie Review

Bad Moms (2016)

Dir: Jon Lucas and Scott Moore

STX Entertainment

Bad Moms is a comedy about Amy (Mila Kunis), mother of two, wife to (at best) a goofball fool, and part-time employee at a hipster coffee company, who eventually crumples under the pressure of having to always be the perfect wife, mother and employee after attending a PTA meeting that pushes her over the edge.

After leaving the meeting in frustration, she ends up at a bar and quickly becomes friends with Carla (Kathryn Hahn) and Kiki (Kristen Bell), two other moms whose children attend the same school as Amy’s.  Somewhat drunk, they decide that it’s time to stop trying to be perfect, time to start enjoying themselves, time to, in fact, be bad Moms.

Sure, the premise is a little thin, but a good comedy doesn’t necessarily need an intricate web of plot, it just needs good comedy. Bad Moms delivers good comedy.

One thing I’ve noticed about comedies over the years is that, almost as a rule, the first two acts are where all the funny is at, and the third act generally becomes less funny, as it’s dealing with the conflict and conclusion. This is where Bad Moms differentiates itself. It starts off slow, and not particularly funny. There isn’t a single big laugh until midway through act one when Amy, Carla and Kiki get drunk at the bar. This is the point where the laughs kick off. While they do slow down a little towards the end, the flick is consistently funny once it gets going.

The closest thing the movie has to a villain (really, an antagonist) is Gwendolyn (Christina Applegate), the head of the PTA, rich bitch, and all around bully. Much as I love Applegate, her character didn’t do much for me, as she is played almost as a moustache-twirling villain, with little humanity. Gwendolyn does get humanized towards the end, but it was too little too late. Fortunately, she doesn’t take too much time from the core 3 women that make the movie work.

Contrary to popular belief, I am, in fact, not a mother. But I do think that human truths are universal. We all know what it’s like to be under appreciated in a job or role (and I would argue that motherhood is probably one of the most thankless tasks out there). While it is a comedy first, I can see this movie giving people a little taste of empowerment. The whole “casting off the shackles” thing. In some ways, I found it reminiscent of Peter Gibbons in Office Space (1999). Getting to the end of your rope and just screaming “f*ck it!”

For a somewhat raunchy comedy, Bad Moms has a surprising amount of heart. It’s sweet when it needs to be, melodramatic when necessary, but the melodrama never becomes overbearing. I feel like this movie is what Ghostbusters 2016 could (should) have been, if it had had better writing – a female-driven comedy with a cast stacked with heavy hitters (the problem with Ghostbusters was most certainly not the cast).

MVP: unsurprisingly, Kathryn Hahn is the standout performance in Bad Moms. Her comic timing is as lethal as ever in this film. Okay, maybe she never hits quite the high of peeing in a urinal, but she really does kill it here.

Sure, the film gets a little silly at times (even though it’s a comedy), and certain moments feel out of place, but overall, it’s funny, it’s charming, and it’s a lot of fun.

7.5/10

14A, 1h, 40mins

Have you seen Bad Moms? What was your favourite gag in it? Hit up the comments below and let’s discuss!

Sausage Party – Movie Review

Sausage Party (2016)

Dir: Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon 

Sony Pictures

Sausage Party is a computer animated movie in the style of Pixar, and it is NOT a family film. Full transparency here, this review will include very small spoilers, but won’t give the movie away. I got your back, internet.

The basic premise is “what if food was sentient?” Much of the flick takes place in a grocery store (which is misrepresented by the trailers) and features anthropomorphized food items, excitedly waiting to be taken to the Great Beyond by the Gods (humans).

I get the impression that Seth Rogan came up with the idea while indulging in his favourite pastime and contemplating his munchies. How there wasn’t a “herb” joke made is beyond me (unless there was and I missed it). Perhaps that’s too on the nose even for this flick.

Does Sausage Party earn its 18A rating (R in the States)? Yes. Yes it does. This film is extreme. Think South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, or Team America: World Police. It is filled with graphic language, which starts off funny, becomes tired, and then becomes funny again. It’s really violent, despite the fact that it’s food. So does that count? Hmm. Perhaps, if only because it reminds us of the graphic realism that was the opening of Saving Private Ryan in a perfect parody. And yes, there’s sexual content, and it goes pretty far. Not the uncut version of Team America far, but certainly on par with the Team America theatrical cut.

Like South Park itself, everyone and everything is skewered in this movie and nary a punch is pulled. Rape? Check. DudeBro culture (the antagonist is very much a DudeBro, voiced exceptionally well by Nick Kroll, but I shan’t tell you what he is because it’s too good)? Check. Religion? Check. The relationship between Israel and Palestine? Check. Drug culture (I have to say, seeing a character in the style of Pixar injecting bath salts is too delightful for words)? Check. Homosexuality? Check. The list goes on.

I mentioned religion above, which brings me to an aspect of the movie that, those who know me will probably be surprised that I was bothered by. The film has a pretty strong atheistic message. Our hero Frank (Rogan), unlike the rest of the food, isn’t quite sold on the Gods and the Great Beyond, having never seen anything that can prove their existence. While his stance does soften somewhat in the end, it does come off as rather preachy, assuming that one can PREACH atheism. Seems like a little paradoxical, but let’s move on, shall we?

The cast does a solid to excellent job across the board. I find Rogan’s voice funny as it is. And he brought all his pals along with him. Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, James Franco (aka Jiminy Frankfurt), the always likeable Kristen Wiig, Craig Robinson, an unrecognizable Bill Hader (I thought it was Johnny Depp), Paul Rudd, David Krumholtz, Salma Hayek, Anders Holm, Harland Williams, Danny McBride, the aforementioned Nick Kroll, and an wonderful turn from Edward Norton (doing his best Woody Allen impression) round out the cast.

The soundtrack makes sparing use of licensed music, but every song lands perfectly to set the scene with big laughs, aside from Joy to the World by Three Dog Night over the closing credits. I f*cking hate that song.

The ending of the film clearly sets up a sequel, which, given the premise, would be a very different movie, and one I would be curious to see. It also gets fairly meta, in a way that made me laugh even though it felt a little out of place.

Finally, the big question: is it funny? Yes, and no. I’m disappointed to say that the movie is far more clever than it is funny. In some ways, it’s a very smart movie. The way the filmmakers envision certain foodstuffs as living beings (bottles of horseradish as galloping horses for instance) really is quite clever. Unfortunately, this flick did not deliver the consistent belly laughs that I expect from the motley crue that is the Rogan camp. Yes, there were a few moments throughout where I was having trouble breathing due to uproarious laughter, but, sadly, they were few, and far between. In fairness, we all know that laughter is contagious, and I saw this by myself in a pretty empty theatre (I have been considering writing a rant in defence of seeing a movie alone, as I don’t get the stigma against it. Let me know in the comments if you’d like to read that), so that may have contributed to it.

Still, I wish I would have laughed harder.

6.5/10

Have you seen Sausage Party yet? Is there another movie you’d like to see me review? I’d love to read your thoughts. Hit the comments section and let’s discuss! And please, share this post if you liked it. Thanks for reading!

Ghostbusters – Movie Review

Ghostbusters (2016)

Dir: Paul Feig

Sony Pictures

So. Let’s talk about Ghostbusters.

Was it a good movie? No, not particularly. Was it the trainwreck the trailers made it out to be? Not at all. A good few of the jokes that didn’t land in the trailers do so in context. The first two acts are actually pretty fun. There are a few genuine laughs, and a couple pretty creepy moments. The final act is fairly sloppy however. It loses focus and the laughs pretty much stop.

I liked the cast. Leslie Jones actually did a really good job, and I don’t like her much. Wiig and McCarthy had good chemistry. All 4 of them did, really. Kate Mckinnon was the standout for me, though I think her performance will polarize, because she’s basically a cartoon. And Thor? He was pretty funny, though the shtick got old as he became progressively dumber throughout.

The villain however, was lame. Very lame. His motivations? Lame. Interesting, layered and charismatic performance? Negatory, good buddy. It’s been 45 minutes and I already can’t picture his face. Obviously this contributed to the weak finale. Fortunately, the idea from the original pitch that involved the entire NYPD being possessed into a dance number was alluded to, but cut (or never filmed in the first place).

The flick is rife with nods, references to, and cameos from the original. A couple would have sufficed, but it’s overkill to the point of distraction.

I hate 3D, but it was my only option, so I went with IMAX 3D. It was actually pretty solid. Because it wasn’t true IMAX, it was still a letterbox presentation with the horizontal black bars on the top and bottom of the screen. This movie used that negative space in a way I’ve never seen before, and it was cool! The streams from the proton packs, as well as explosions of ectoplasm, and ghosts themselves would often fly out into the negative space of the black bars. Nice touch.

Finally, I’ve read that some are considering this movie “reverse sexist”, in that it paints every single male as an idiot or a jerk. I call bullshit. Yes, it does do that, but it paints pretty much every character outside of the core 4 in that light, male and female alike.

Tl;dr.

In short, Ghostbusters pales in comparison to the original, but it’s on par with, or maybe slightly worse than Ghostbusters 2. It’s adequate summer popcorn fun. Plus, I’m not the target. I think little kids will love it.

6/10

Like Robocop and Total Recall before it, you’ll probably forget about this movie soon enough. This movie won’t ruin your childhood. Your childhood is on your trusty blu-ray, right where you left it. Check it out. It still stands up.

What did you think about Ghostbusters? How do you think the marketing campaign compared with the final result? Comment below, and let’s discuss!