Negative overhype: Thoughts on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Zack Snyder's biggest problem may be his tendency to take his subject matter a tad too seriously. He teeters on the very brink of the comically melodramatic. One cannot fault him for attempting to infuse the superhero genre with human interest and emotion. On the other hand, he takes a risk in attempting to paint characters like Superman as poignant figures. I was one of the few who appreciated this aspect of Man of Steel. If you can ignore what happens at the end, Man of Steel's flaw was in its pacing, something that could have been easily fixed with some creative editing.

Now Snyder's back at it with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. While continuing to paint Superman as a poignant figure, Snyder revisits Batman's origins. Yes, moviegoers have grown weary of having origin stories retold time and again. In this case, however, Snyder gets a pass because a significant detail has bearing on the story he's telling, one that he patiently unfolds one corner at a time. This results in what begins as a slower-paced film than many may not like but culminates, I argue, in a more satisfying finished product.

If you've paid any attention to media headlines relating to Batman v Superman, you're probably under the impression that it's bad enough to be a Razzie contender. It's not. Ignore the hype and the negative reviews. As far as superhero films goes, Dawn of Justice is a good one. Anyone who's been following Warner Studios' playbook for its DC Comics film offerings knows that this chapter establishes the foundation on which a series of Justice League films will be built. The hype machine would have you believe that this film is such a colossal failure that the Justice League may not happen. That would be a real shame, especially if the film fails at the box office because of critics piling on with negative reviews.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opens with a scene that sets up the central conflict between the titular heroes, namely, that Superman is too powerful, a loose cannon who is as great a danger to the people he aims to protect as the threats against which he's fighting. While the rivalry between the two heroes feels somewhat contrived (and in one sense it is, given that it orchestration by a particular individual), it effectively drives the film toward the inevitable confrontation. The subplot strands seem meandering but are in fact connected. It's not the most tidily plotted story, but one can easily understand where it's headed.

In spite of the slow beginnings, it's clear the story is leading somewhere, and the tension ratchets steadily higher as it climbs toward the climax. Clumsy at times and hamhanded, the plot remains engrossing and pulls the players together in interesting ways.

Mostly, however, the film is enjoyable for the characters. Jesse Eisenberg is clever and manic as a young Lex Luthor. You cannot help but pay attention when he's onscreen, though at times his portrayal of Luthor seems a bit too erratic. Luthor is an intelligent, confident, calculating individual, so Eisenberg's interpretation seems a little off target. But he's still highly enjoyable to watch, and it will be interesting to watch this character develop in future installments.

Henry Caville just plain looks like he belongs in the Superman suit. The relationship with Lois humanizes him and makes him a more sympathetic character. But I have to wonder why he hasn't been fired from his job because I don't think he completed a single assignment over the course of the film.

As much as fans grumbled about it, I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. There's great potential for him to bring more personality to the role and make the films more entertaining and less stiff. Only a few times did we see glimpses of this in Dawn of Justice, but the stage has been set for a whole new take on the Batman. I especially enjoyed the scenes showing Wayne working out to prepare for his battle with the Man of Steel. It was hardcore tires and chains kind of stuff. I have no doubt that the Batman Workout Plan is on its way. "Are you tired of Superman kicking sand in your face? Then work out like a Bat!"

Batman and Superman get their name in the title of the film, but Wonder Woman really steals the show. Gal Gadot plays Diana Prince perfectly with the poise, confidence, and even cockiness appropriate to the Amazonian. Never mind that she saves Batman's arse, she also throws herself into battle with reckless abandon. She is fearless and revels in the challenge of going toe-to-toe with Doomsday.

When Wonder Woman makes her official appearance onscreen, the film takes on a whole new personality. It becomes the kind of action adventure romp we've come to expect from those other guys, you know, Marvel Studios. And I think this is more what DC fans want. Give Snyder some credit for not selling out into that formula, but the taste we got of it at the end of Dawn of Justice really made the film worth the build-up and the wait.

Dawn of Justice contains a number of references pointing to the future of the franchise, and we can only hope it all comes to fruition. It adopts the term "metahumans" to refer to individuals with super powers. Diana Prince peruses a number of files purloined from Luthor's computer that profile the metahumans who will make up at least the initial Justice League team, including Aquaman, the Flash and Cyborg. Speaking of purloined files, I'm pretty sure someone on Luthor's level of genius would have better security. Perhaps he didn't care that people could just walk up to his computer and snatch files because he thought his encryption was unbreakable?

Fans have a lot to be happy with in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. You've got the clash of titans between Superman and Batman. Yeah, sure, Batman didn't stand a chance without the kryptonite and the armor, but it was still enjoyable to watch. There's the appearance of Doomsday and a kickass Wonder Woman, the introduction to other heroes in the DC Universe ready to spring to the big screen. And then there's the allusion to bigger and badder things on the horizon. While Luthor seems to be babbling incoherently from his cell, anyone who's read the comics knows what's coming. Bruce Wayne's conversation with Diana Prince at the end is also very telling. Bruce tells Diana that they will need to find and team up with the other metahumans they both know about. She suggests that they might not want to be found, but Bruce tells her he has a hunch that they will be willing to band together because of what's coming. While he certainly doesn't know what Luthor is talking about when he confronts him in his cell, Batman is able to foresee that, just as there are good people with super powers, there will also be bad, which means that the world will need a powerful force to fight the bad that's coming. And we all know what that means.

No Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not a perfect film. It is, however, an enjoyable one with some glimpses at a potentially bright future for the Justice League on the big screen. If the writers and the director can learn to lighten up a little bit, this will be a highly entertaining super hero franchise.

Marvel Studios does it yet again

When the trailers first started streaming, I'm sure many folks asked, "Guardians of the Who? What?" And then there were those like me. I'm sure I'm not alone here. Somebody tell me I'm not alone here. I couldn't help being just a tad skeptical. They're making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie? Really? Um, that's weird, and, yeah, totally cool, but it's probably going to suck balls. Chris Pratt is Star-Lord? Yeah, it's going to suck balls.

But then I had to admit that first trailer was pretty damned awesome. I watched it over and over again. Then there were more trailers and more promos, and I had to wonder whether it was being overhyped and whether it could ever live up to that. It's pretty obvious, however, that Marvel Studios has found the perfect formula for a crowd-pleasing hit: lots of humor, lots of action, far-flung adventures, and lovable characters. Guardians of the Galaxy is stuffed full of all these ingredients and for good measure, they jumped up and down on the suitcase to pack in an awesome soundtrack too. It's the kind of the movie that really encourages the audience to get up and dance.

And you know what? It shouldn't even be shown in movie theaters. It should be shown in dance clubs, outside on Jumbotrons so people can get up and move when the urge strikes—and let me tell you, it will strike often while you're watching this one.

No, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't going to win any awards for being riveting drama. Much of what happens in the film feels frankly contrived. Oh, sure, the story about the death of Quill's mother is moving, and you can't help screaming inside at him to take her damned hand, dammit! Most of it is really just going through the motions, but you just can't help freaking loving it because the characters will break you down. I dare you to go into this one determined to hate any of them. Before it's over, you'll be buying all the plushies. You will, I'm telling you, you will. Had a really bad day at work? Just got fired? Go see Guardians of the Galaxy and you'll find yourself just knocking that dirt off your shoes.

Yes, it is mostly the characters that drive this one. While some of the sequences that attempt to build their personas might as well be bumper stickers, their unique personalities and interactions win you over with relative ease.

Chris Pratt is zany and absurdly charismatic as Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, the petty thief and smuggler who becomes the leader of the band of losers who earn the name Guardians of the Galaxy. Yeah, they earned it. Ronan the Accuser himself coined the title. Yeah, that scene was just a hair's width on the side of contrived too, but what the hell.

I have to admit, Zoe Saldana looks pretty good as green-skinned Gamora. You know what they say about the green ones. No, no, I don't either. I was very impressed with the effects and make-up jobs. In most films like this, the skin colors usually look like they're painted on. In this case, suspension of disbelief is well secured. Dave Bautista makes for an appropriately intimidating Drax the Destroyer, although I remember him being more of a badass in the comic books. It's unfortunate that Groot doesn't really say much, but he's a pretty incredible character nonetheless. He's like a small Treebeard with a bad side. And I found myself really liking Michael Rooker as Yondu. No, Yondu didn't look like he does in the comics, but Rooker took the role and molded it to himself. I especially enjoyed the scene at the end where he smiles knowingly as if to say, "Good one!" 

We have to face a pretty simple fact here, folks. Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon positively steals the show. His cynicism and sarcasm drive the best laughs. Had I not seen the credits, I never would have known that was Cooper voicing the maniacal raccoon. And, really, he's kind of the brains of the operation. He's got that techie geek air about him—knows his way around gizmos, knows his way around a gun or two ... And as contrived as his backstory is, you can't help feeling for the poor little homicidal bastard.

The plot is barely thicker than the ticket stub, but this is one of the best feel-good movies you'll ever see. A bunch of misfits come together. They were trying to kidnap, kill, rob, etc., each other, but now they're great friends and they're going to save the galaxy from some crazy bastard with a big hammer. Dammit, I really, really wanted to see Thor cross hammers with Ronan. That ... that sounds kind of dirty. But, still. Great plot? Well, yeah, been there, done that, but it is a comic book movie, after all, and that's par for the course, right?

From start to finish, Guardians of the Galaxy is an enjoyable ride that you won't want to see end. The fact that it gives us all a better look at Thanos, tying it in with that other Marvel blockbuster, is another layer sugar-coma-inducing frosting.

Watch it for the humor, watch it for the soundtrack, watch it for the wonderful characters, but just watch it. Guardians of the Galaxy is one fun thrill ride of an adventure.

Bye-bye cable, hello streaming

So I ditched cable some months back. The family still hates me for it, but it was a financial necessity. We just plain couldn't afford it any more. I purchased a couple of indoor antennae (antennas?) to pick up air signals, but, yeah, the number of channels is greatly limited and the signals tend to be unreliable. The plan was to purchase a good outdoor antenna and split the signal out to all of the TVs in the house—just three of them, really, but that hasn't happened yet.

As a replacement, I've turned to subscribing to three streaming services: Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime. Netflix has a pretty large library of TV shows and movies, but quality can be spotty. Some of the movie offerings I could do without, but I do like many of the TV shows, including "The IT Crowd," "Dexter," and "Breaking Bad." The problem with the TV offerings is that they tend to be older series. Since I often want to watch recently aired programs, I also subscribe to Hulu Plus, which streams a number of programs I like a day or two after the network air date.

I also have an Amazon Prime membership, which affords me access to a number of TV and movie offerings included in the subscription fee, with rentals and purchases available for many more titles.

Streaming programs can save you money over that bloated cable subscription, but it's a decidedly mixed bag for a number of reasons.

First, you won't have immediate access to the all of the new episodes you like, and some seasons aren't made available to streaming services for up to a year after the original air dates. A number of really good programs are still available, and some of the older offerings are classics or ought to be considered classics. You also have access to many hidden gems you didn't even know existed, especially programs from the other side of the pond.

Network performance can be another issue. Even if your ISP isn't throttling bandwidth for some services, you have to put up with occasional buffering. I pay a premium for faster internet service, so I don't expect to have problem streaming video. I play online games without a problem, but sometimes I do experience lag and buffering while trying to watch video. Believe it or not, your hardware can be the source of streaming issues. I learned this firsthand while using an internet-ready Sony Blu-Ray player. I almost always had an issue with Netflix. At certain times in the evening I was just plain unable to watch a movie or TV program because the stream would buffer every few minutes and would sometimes never resume. It got so bad that I finally just cancelled Netflix. I didn't have the same problem with Vudu, a digital rental and purchase service, so I decided it must be an issue with Netflix's service.

Sometime later I purchased a Roku for my streaming needs, and, lo and behold, my buffering issues went away. A little research on the internet revealed that this was a common problem among users of the same Blu-Ray player I owned.

After I started streaming programs on the Roku, I saw a significant decline in the number of network and buffering issues. And by "significant", I mean they went from an everyday occurrence to almost never. And if you do like to stream movies and TV, I highly recommend the Roku. I consider it the best $100 I've ever spent on a video/network device.

Aside from challenges like these, I can't say that I really miss cable that much. For regular broadcast TV, I'm doing okay with the antennae, but I will certainly install an outdoor antenna as a long-term solution. The craziest part is, I still end up channel surfing. How's that? you wonder. Well, I often find myself spending hours paging through Netflix or Hulu or Amazon programs trying to find something to watch. Yes, there are tons of options—perhaps too many sometimes, but I still find myself pondering, "What am I in the mood for?"

When it comes to comedy, I have frankly been spoiled by "The IT Crowd." While I enjoy many comedies, including "Community," "Scrubs" and "Psych," few have given me the same kind of laughs as "The IT Crowd."

Which service is best? Well, it's hard to say, really; it depends on what exactly you're looking for. I would break it down like this:

• Netflix: Tons and tons of movies and TV programs to watch. Generally good quality video. The new navigation interface is terrible, however. It's fine for when you're looking for a specific program, but if you're just browsing, like when I'm channel surfing, it's horrendous. Netflix needs to get a clue and offer a better browsing experience, for example, by specific channel or genre. The genre categories are really bad too. It's like they hired a 12-year-old to make some arbitrary labels. I'm telling you, it's gawdawful, and I often switch to another streaming service simply because I get frustrated with Netflix browsing.
• Hulu Plus: Great for TV, especially current programs, and offers some decent original content. Hulu Plus is my go-to service for watching the most recent episodes of programs I like, such as "Community," "Bob's Burgers," and "Agents of Shield" (yes, dammit, I'm watching it). Movie offerings aren't great, but that's not really its niche. The browsing experience is much, much better than Netflix's.
• Amazon Prime: Not nearly as big a collection as Netflix and no new content like Hulu Plus, but the Prime membership does give you access to some great programs, including "Justified," "Whitechapel," "Sherlock" and others. I've had almost zero network problems with Amazon.
• Vudu: My favorite services for renting movies and for purchasing programs digitally. The video quality is great, and I almost never have any network issues streaming programs. If you've never used Vudu, I highly recommend it for movie rentals. Since it's a rental service, there's no monthly fee like the streaming services. I've purchased a number of program seasons on Vudu and love to browse the Collections list.

One caveat I should add about each service's interface is that it will vary from one device to the next. I got very used to the interface on the Roku, so navigating on my Vizio TV is sometimes frustrating.

No one service is a complete solution, in my opinion, but if I were forced to choose just one, I'd probably go with Netflix simply because of the size of its library. And I am convinced that the only way to stream anything is on a Roku. Not only do I highly recommend the Roku, I'm strongly considering purchasing additional units for the other rooms in the house.

Thor: The dark ring around my tub

Marvel Studios has come up with a solid formula to keep its film franchises chugging along as money-printing juggernauts bulldozing presidential portraits into their coffers. The formula calls for equal parts action, humor and romance. The "equal parts" statement could be arguable at this point. They found with the original Iron-Man (2008) that an ample dose of quips is good enough to make the audience forget about the nonsensical parts of any cinematic offering. The only problem is, formulas get tired. You can only go to the well so often before it just becomes lame and tired.

And that's how I'm starting to feel about it after being subjected to one hour and fifty-two minutes of one-liners, inanity and superhero beatdowns in "Thor: The Dark World" (2013). Alan Taylor's sequel to 2011's "Thor" is certainly a funny film and, at times at least, entertaining. The jokes, however, are becoming a bit predictable. If the current trend continues, my 12-year-old son will be coming up with better one-liners than "Thor 3" can offer.

But, really, that's not what bothers me most about "The Dark World." What bothers me most is that I cannot take any of it, not one ounce, with any level of seriousness. Most superhero films succeed because they allow you to immerse yourself in the fiction of the worlds they've created. You don't have to wonder how it is Thor flies or whether it's reasonable for a lightning-wielding demigod to be infatuated with a mere mortal down here in good old Midgard. When I first heard about plans to do the original Thor film, I thought it just wouldn't work. I frankly never much liked Thor as a Marvel superhero. I feared the movie would be lame and silly, but they made it work. The plot was tight and self contained. The romance between Thor and Jane seemed contrived and lacked chemistry, but the story worked and the action was satisfying.

In "The Dark World" we must accept the idea of dimension-jumping, spaceship-flying Dark Elves as a dire threat to Asgard and Earth. There's too much about the battle scenes--especially those involving the spacecraft--that just doesn't seem to fit. The whole bit about the ancient Dark Elf threat to Asgard is easy enough to swallow, but then it just gets weird. And they overcomplicate things with the world alignment business that will allow Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) to use the Aether as a weapon to destroy Asgard. The bigger problems arise back on Earth where scientists who run around with Galaxy Note-like devices try to explain what's happening in sciencey-sounding terms. I'm sure it all looks and sounds really cool--to third graders, but it's just plain insipid to anyone over the age of 12.

I'm honestly not sure whether it was supposed to be absurd or whether they thought it would be appropriate for comic book fare to not really make any sense. It felt almost as if the actors were ad-libbing the silliness that escaped their lips during the scenes in which they discussed the alignments and portals and vortexes.

Frankly, I had a lot of trouble caring about anything that happened in this film. At least in the first one I felt empathy for Thor when he was tossed out of Asgard and left to walk the mortal plane as a regular guy. In this sequel there's very little vested interest in the characters. Most of them are endearing and amusing, but it's hard to really make it work in less than two hours. If this were a TV sitcom, I'd grow to love some of the characters, including Darcy whose lines are often lame and contrived.

There's a YouTube joke about it involving Chris O'Dowd, who is underused and misused in this film, employing his standard line from "The IT Crowd." The YouTube parody is hilarious, but it also makes me think how much better this film would have been if it were itself a parody of Thor. It dances around that line enough that it would take but a slight breeze to push it over the edge. I could easily imagine seeing Richard Ayoade step into the scene with O'Dowd when Jane calls him on a cell phone from the other side of one of those portals. No, dammit, I am not making that up. It actually happens in the movie. Instead of Richard, O'Dowd should actually be playing Roy, and Moss's entrance into the film would have elicited nothing but floor-rumbling belly laughs from me.

At least then I could have said I thoroughly enjoyed the film. As it stands, I paid way too much money to purchase a digital title.

Unexpected Journey Indeed

I have been a fan of Tolkien’s books for many years. When my son was younger, I read to him from The Hobbit each night at bedtime until we’d finished the book. From there we moved on to the “Lord of the Rings.” Before that, I wasn’t sure he even had much interest in books, but something about Tolkien’s works sparked his imagination, and he’s been an avid reader ever since.

One of the appeals of Tolkien’s works is the great care he takes in describing the settings and their history. He weaves a rich, multicolored fabric that is both enthralling and believable. Immersed in a Tolkien story, one does not doubt for a moment that eagles can be gigantic and noble and fierce or that wargs can talk and be sinister or that trolls come out at night and turn to stone when exposed to sunlight.

So it was that I anticipated Peter Jackson’s big-screen adaptation with impatience and enthusiasm. The idea of the sprawling adventure unfolding before my eyes was too much to resist. I couldn’t wait to share in the adventure with my son.

Unfortunately, this film falls into the same trap that snares far too many big-budget Hollywood projects in believing that nonstop action, CGI and over-the-top fight scenes always make for a winning combination. In this case, it just plain ruins everything.

From the overblown computer-generated effects to the preposterous story embellishments and obtrusive additions, Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” robs the original story of the magic and charm that makes it one of the world’s most enduring works of literature.

Jackson makes no pretense about the embellishments. We are forewarned by the very title that this is not Tolkien’s work, and a fitting title it is because I was, in fact, taken on an entirely unexpected journey.

Jackson uses Gandalf to give voice to how he has taken liberties with the beloved prelude to “The Lord of the Rings.” After relating the tale of Bilbo’s great granduncle Bullroarer, Gandalf remarks that every good tale deserves some embellishment. But by this point I had already become unsettled as I sat waiting patiently for the real story to begin. Jackson chose to open the movie with scenes from his previous Tolkien epics. In fact, throughout this film reference after reference to--you know--those other movies crops up time and again, as if Jackson is either paying homage to his greatest success or trying to bludgeon the audience into remembering what comes after these adventures. Oh, and by the way, the many flashforwards seem to warn, something really bad is coming, really, really bad. As if anybody needed reminding at this point.

Jackson’s embellishments are many, and it is not my aim to catalog them all, but to point out how those embellishments are thievery, pure and simple, and his victims are those of us who loved the original tale as it was told by a real storyteller. Why, this man could rip the magic clean out of Hogwarts, I tell you, and not shed so much as a single tear.

Many Tolkien purists took exception with Jackson’s embellishments in the “Lord of the Rings” films. I forgave those transgressions because he still spun a rip-roaring adventure tale and gave some depth to the characters that was lacking in the books. It was a fair trade-off, I felt.

In “The Hobbit” it’s entirely different. The movie is a patchwork quilt of events and scenes and references in the book all sewn together into a raggedy quilt that doesn’t feel at all like the source material, quite often doesn’t make much sense and, more often than not, deteriorates into utter absurdity.

His depiction of Radaghast is nothing short of criminal. First off, Radaghast doesn’t even appear in The Hobbit. He’s mentioned in passing in a conversation between Gandalf and Beorn, who, you might have noticed, isn’t in this first film of the trilogy. But what does Jackson do to him? Turns him into an addle-brained, hare-sleigh mushing fool who carries a bird’s nest on his head and has hair matted with bird droppings. Bird droppings! He seems like a funny character, but, really, he’s just absurd--far too absurd for this story, if you ask me. I understand Jackson’s wanting to give some depth to the characters. One of the appeals of Radaghast is that he’s such a mysterious character. Tolkien manages to drop his name here and there throughout the books without really giving us a good look at the man except for Gandalf’s secondhand account of having met with him.  I just hate it that Jackson turned him into such a foolish figure, perhaps taking his interpretation from Saruman’s derisive assessment of the wizard as a bird lover. And, unfortunately, this is how everyone will forever think of Radaghast.

Everything in Jackson’s film has to be hyperbolic to the extreme. The storm giants Bilbo sees in the distance hurling rocks back and forth become the very mountains they’re attempting to navigate, and the whole party is nearly crushed in the fray. The whole scene is comically overdone Saturday morning fare and ridiculously contrived.

Worse by far is the charm Jackson wrenched from the scene in which Bilbo and dwarves fall onto the menus of hungry trolls. The book shows off a bit of Gandalf’s magic and cleverness, but the movie’s got to make it a big, action-packed spectacle. Never mind that Bilbo got nabbed trying to pilfer something from one of the troll’s pockets, and never mind that the dwarves all got popped into sacks coming to find out what the racket of the trolls’ bickering was all about. But that whole business of Gandalf smiting the side of a hill with his staff and cracking it in two so the sun could shine through and petrify the hungry monsters was infuriating to me. The scene in the book is full of so much humor, and the manner in which Gandalf saves the party from the stewpot is clever and funny at the same time. The movie ruined it, positively ruined it.

The dwarves are also problematic. The dwarves of The Hobbit are polite, bungling and cheerful. Thorin is a bit more stern, but they’re dwarves, and they’re comical. Jackson makes a big show of turning them into these big screen movie warriors who whirl about with swords and fancy attack moves and slice and dice everything and loose arrows with deadly accuracy. Yes, as we see in many parts of the books, dwarves are stout warriors, fierce and brave, but Jackson’s interpretation of them entirely robs the story of its character. Yes, again, I understand his wanting to give each and every dwarf some kind of unique identity and depth. He manages that pretty well, but I’m certain he could have done it without ruining the story.

Don’t get me started on the albino orc. Where that comes from I have no idea. And the animosity between the dwarves and elves? Not in the book and taken to the extreme in this version of the tale. Contrary to what Jackson would have us believe, Thorin treats Elrond with respect and reverence in the book. Every single detail from the book depicted in the movie is magnified and embellished to such a degree as to hardly resemble what actually happened. Someone ought to tell Jackson that a little subtlety can go a long way and that if a work has a certain charm about it because of its humor and lightheartedness, then sometimes it’s best to try to preserve those qualities instead of trying to turn the whole thing into something it shouldn’t be. I’d hoped for an honest, faithful rendition of the story, but Jackson’s version is a violation of everything that makes the book worth reading.

I never dreamed it could be possible, but I sat for most of the movie wishing for it to be over. Not even the fast pace and oooh, looky-looky special effects could save this film from being a tiresome affair. The only positive thing I can say is that Martin Freeman was pretty good as the young Bilbo. I like Martin Freeman. And Gollum was okay. The CGI has gotten really good. You’d almost never know he wasn’t really there.

All I can do now is let out a long sigh as I realize I haven’t the slightest desire to see the next installment. I’ll just go read a book instead.

Oh, no! You sank my movie!

I don't believe I've ever watched a movie that made less sense than Battleship, the movie inexplicably based on the board game of the same name. Taylor Kitsch and Alexander Skarsgard star as unlikely brothers Alex Hopper and Stone Hopper, respectively, one an officer in the navy, the other a down-and-out, unemployed loser. Older brother Stone tries to convince younger brother Alex to join the navy, but Alex is more interested in the curvy blonde who has suddenly appeared in search of a chicken burrito. And that's where everything begins rolling down the Baffling Highway of Inexplicable  and Senseless Events.

Alex somehow goes from breaking into a convenience store, stealing a chicken burrito, destroying property, resisting arrest and being tased to becoming a commander in the US Navy. One could begin making jokes about how selective the Navy is with its recruits. As absurd as it sounds, this is just one of the many head-slappingly unbelievable events that put severe strain on suspension of disbelief—even in this sci-fi actioner. Had this been a made-for-Saturday-morning-TV movie released in the '90s, it could have become a popular classic among the younger crowd. Unfortunately, it's just impossible to take seriously a movie like this being released on the big screen.

After Hopper lands command of his own ship in the US Navy, the aliens appear with the apparent intent of launching an invasion to conquer the Earth. Well, at least that's what the audience is expected to believe—in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The alien race possesses military technology far beyond that possessed by the US Navy—yet time and again they don't utilize it to their full advantage. They can swat us Earth humans around like flies, yet they allow us to one-by-one destroy every ship in their reconnaissance fleet. In addition to artillery that resembles the pegs used to sink ships in the board game (this was obviously intentional), the alien arsenal also includes spinning, fiery balls of doom that can chew through metal like wet cardboard. They could easily have launched a few of these to eat through every single weapon the humans possess. Instead they sit around waiting for the insects to attack them with their puny weapons and slowly demolish everything they have.

Oh, but this is, after all, just a reconnaissance mission for the aliens. They're just here to send a message back to the homeworld about a plump fruit ripe for the picking. Never mind that the reconnaissance forces themselves seem to be more than a match for anything the Earth can throw at them. Naturally, the humans, against all the odds prevail because of their tenacity and ingenuity in the face of insurmountable obstacles. And the gullible audience is expected to rejoice in the triumph of the underdog, assuming that the homeworld won't miss the reconnaissance mission or will have decided that the Earth is just too powerful for them to conquer.

The movie really just doesn't make much sense, but it does offer up plenty of moments that tug at American heartstrings. And, if I may digress for a moment, that is another of the film's great failings. Like many other films, it suffers from being solidly planted in an American perspective with blinders firmly in place. After all, if an alien race is going to launch an invasion of Earth, it would certainly be the US Navy it confronts. Because nobody else has any weapons to bring to bear.

But if we can ignore such shortsightedness, then we will surely be moved by the double-amputee military veteran who has the courage to go toe-to-toe with one of the alien brutes, pounding it with one right cross after another until several of its teeth go flying. And who could possibly be immune to the emotional appeal of the WWII veterans who help Hopper launch the USS Missouri into the battle? Even the movie's token geek steps up to inspire the audience with unlikely bravery. Ultimately, however, it is Hopper's rise from ne'er-do-well to hero that provides the films strongest moment.

The movie counts on emotional appeals to please the audience because, quite frankly, it's got nothing else in the tank. This is an empty, illogical, senseless mess that nevertheless manages to make us—some of us at least—raise our fists in triumph and belt out a loud "Hurrah!"

John Carter: Don't buy the anti-hype

A cliche that has floated around for decades states, "Don't believe the hype." It's a simple idea that hyperbolic claims about something tend to lead to disappointment, that the underlying substance usually fails to live up to the assertions. Hype is much like fiction in that the tale, to paraphrase a well-known writer, tends to grow in the telling. The bigger the hype, the bigger the disappointment in the final product.

The same can be said of negative hype, or "anti-hype," if you will. The more vitriol you hear about something, the less terrible you realize it must actually be.

While I concede that some movies deserve much of the criticism they receive, it often seems that deliberate forces are at work to undermine others, in much the same way that politicians employ attack ads against their opponents.

And that brings me to the recent rental release John Carter, aka John Carter of Mars, aka A Princess of Mars (if we want to link it to its Edgar Rice Burroughs source material), directed by Andrew Stanton and starring Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins. This film suffered greatly from negative hype. Rumors about various problems swirled about as its box office release date approached. The title of the film was even changed before its debut, with various excuses provided. The budget was huge, there were production problems, and there was just no way Disney was going to recoup all of its investment. In short, John Carter was a dismal failure.

The truth is, John Carter is not such a bad movie after all. The saddest part is that it was indeed a failure at the box office and may be declared one of the biggest bombs of all time. Frankly, I have seen far worse films that performed far better at the box office.

That is not to say that John Carter is a great movie, but it does have enough in the way of story, special effects and action to make it pretty darned good. And at its core it does offer a fine look at the development of the titular character.

One reason stated for the title change from John Carter of Mars to simply John Carter was to show the progression of the character from a Virginia Civil War veteran who'd lost hope to a man of Mars who'd found a reason to live. In keeping with this idea, the final title screen displays the title as John Carter of Mars. I found this to be a fitting touch, and it truly felt like a triumphant moment.

Unlike many movies that hit the big screen—especially those in the SF and fantasy genre—John Carter is a patient film that is happy to let the character and story develop over time. Beyond the special effects, the action, the romance and even the humor, this above all else makes it worth watching. Most films seem to want to rush headlong from start to finish, story be damned. The more explosions, fights and gunshots, the better. Most people will say John Carter dragged at times. I say it's at those moments that the most critical character development occurs.

And it's the character of John Carter that makes the film. You find yourself liking him from the start. He's willful, cantankerous, resourceful, and he's apathetic, a man who has lost hope. The reason for his despair unfolds over time throughout the film, revealed to us as fragmentary flashbacks until a final, drawn-out scene during an epic battle reveals his pain and loss in bitter full. It is a powerful and moving image, one of the best I've seen in any film of this genre.

You cannot help wanting John Carter to find himself, to regain some measure of purpose and happiness in his life. When it finally happens, it is a satisfying moment. And that is the best way to describe how I felt at the end of this film. It was fulfilling and satisfying.

It's not a perfect movie. There are certainly plenty of awkward moments of unintentional humor. The scene in which Carter is trying to learn how to walk on a planet of lesser gravity than he's accustomed to frankly went on a bit too long. The low-gravity schtick was overdone in many parts of the film and grew tiresome. We did not need to be reminded of it time and time again.

The romance between Carter and Deja was, naturally, predictable and all-too obvious from the start, even when it was apparent that Deja was determined to exploit Carter's strength and abilities to save her planet. But that doesn't mean it still wasn't engaging or that the viewer didn't want it to happen. I contrast this strongly with the romance of Anakin and Padme in the Star Wars films. I was entirely indifferent to that romance, didn't want it to happen and really hoped it would just go away. Here, at least, there are moments you find yourself mentally telling Carter, "Just kiss her, dammit!"

The awkward, predictable or even slow moments are mere blips on the map in an adventure brimming with all of the classic formula elements of action, romance, danger, heroism and humor. It is, simply, an enjoyable, if not terribly remarkable, movie.

In addition to a fine story and some good special effects, John Carter also boasts a great cast, many of whom lend their voices to CGI figures, including Willem Dafoe as Tar Tharkis, Thomas Haden Church as Tal Hajus, Dominic West (McNulty!) as Sab Than and Mark Strong as Matai Shang, and, oh, yes, Bryan Cranston as the Civil War officer, Col. Powell.

No, I will not say John Carter is the best SF/fantasy film I've seen, but it stands up to many of the best and most of the recent releases in the genre. It's more than worth the rental or purchase price, and I may very well grab the Blu-ray myself. This is a clear-cut case of a movie most undeserving of the negative hype.