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.

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.

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.