Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I figured out while watching this movie that the story I really want to see is the love story between Thomas and Martha Wayne (Batman's parents) because maybe I'll actually feel some emotion after seeing them get shot for the thousandth time. But alas this isn't that movie. It's a movie about Superman, so let's get to it.

Set two years after the events of Man of Steel and America is still reeling after Superman (Henry Cavill) destroyed Metropolis City while trying to defeat General Zod. Several people are upset about this and none more so than billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck). As his crime fighting alter ego Batman, he is dedicated to find a way to show people that Supes is not the hero that everyone wants him to be. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is also trying to write a story showing that Batman is a reckless danger on Gotham City. Between the two dynamos is Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who is plotting for each hero to bring down the other, all the while doing research in both metahumans (AKA future movie heroes) like Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and finding a way to turn the people of the world against Superman.

As you can probably tell from that description, there's a lot going on in this movie. And that's a huge problem that is endemic to a lot of these superhero movies. The studios feel as though audiences are stupid and have to cram as much as possible in a single movie to sell movies that have not yet even been written. Batman v Superman has this in spades, introducing every future superhero in the DC Universe, even if it's only for two seconds at a time. These other hero cameos also just serve as a distraction that the film that you're currently watching isn't any good. This is because it is too full. The convoluted plot tries to fit in two introductions of new characters, although Batman really doesn't need any introduction, and Wonder Woman is really only introduced by maybe five lines of dialogue that doesn't give any insight at all to who she is or where she comes from. And in the middle of all this happening, we are treated to a lengthy and jarring dream sequences that diehard comic fans will be able to link to the Flashpoint storyline, but regular moviegoers might get lost with (if you're part of the latter group, maybe just take a squiz at that link). This really could have been chopped out to make a more streamline story.

The aesthetics of this movie are nothing we haven't seen before either. A lot of CGI smash on smashfest that is just moved to an abandoned part of Gotham because people got so up in arms about that happening in Man of Steel. Newsflash Zack Snyder, taking the people out of the equation won't change people's opinions on the wonton destruction of cities. Side note: while we're on Gotham City, did anyone else notice that it seemed really close to Metropolis, almost as if it were in the Greater Metropolis Area? Because you can definitely see the Bat-signal from Metropolis. Back to visuals now. Why was everything slowed down? I can get the need for some stylising of the fight sequences, but there's a whole slo-mo montage of Superman doing his super thing all around the world. I get that it's building dramatic tension, but this movie is way too dramatic for it's own good.

None of this movie's performances warrant anything to write about, but I will anyway because you know I'm that kind of guy. But because there's so many, I'll be brief about each. Henry Cavill could really instil some of his own real-life charm because Superman is too dark and brooding. On the flip side, Ben Affleck barely brooded at all, which is the only thing Batman is really good at. Up until the last five to ten minutes Gal Gadot was really only eye candy for male teenagers and then she became a badass with the only good musical theme in the whole movie. Jesse Eisenberg was over the top as a character who is supposed to be a restrained genius, not the Joker. Jeremy Irons was a very believable Alfred and the total opposite to Michael Caine, so I'm torn there. Laurence Fishburne was too wacky as Perry White this time round. Tao Okamoto, Callan Mulvey and Scoot McNairy weren't in it enough for my liking.

Five minutes into this movie, I found myself thinking, "This movie needs more Wes Bentley." If you're as confused by that sentence as I am, then allow me to explain. If a movie doesn't impress me in the first five minutes, I often think that only the appearance of Wes Bentley will make it better for me. Granted, it's not a thought I find myself with often, but this was definitely one of them. The lack of Wes and the frustrating slowness of Batman v Superman left me sadder than Ben Affleck. Nawww, poor Ben, won't you let us know what's going through that head?

Trumbo

Since the end of Breaking Bad in 2013, audiences have been quietly anticipating a performance from Bryan Cranston that lives up to his role of Walter White. Now with his turn as Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, that wait is over. But the film is not just an impressive performance from Cranston, it also touches on a period of film history that is often forgotten in the larger context.

Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) is a successful screenwriter who is among the elite of Hollywood. He is also a member of the Communist Party, something that makes him and fellow writers somewhat of a target in post-war America, especially for staunch anti-Communists like former actress Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren). Because of his involvement, Trumbo soon has to testify before a hearing by the House Commitee on Un-American Activities. Because he refuses to answer any of the questions, he is charged with contempt of Congress and is sent to prison with ten other writers, including Arlen Hird (Louis C.K.). On the outside world, Trumbo's family are struggling with not having him around and his friend Eddie Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg) leaves him high and dry when he names Trumbo as a communist. When Trumbo is released from prison, he and his fellow writers decide to sell scripts written under pseudonyms.

Bryan Cranston really steals every scene he's in and understandably too. With this performance he delves completely into the character, more so than any character he's ever done before (in real life I imagine him to be a mix of Tim Whatley from Seinfeld and Hal from Malcolm in the Middle). There was even a part where I had to force myself to see Bryan Cranston in the character. Not only is this a testament to the committed performance by him, but it is also glorious praise of Dalton Trumbo. The real man had an intoxicating and humourous quality to him and all the existing footage we have of him is fantastic to watch because he was such a larger than life figure.

Praise must also be heaped upon director Jay Roach's approach to this film. He comes mainly from a background of making comedy movies, namely the Austin Powers and Meet the Parents series of films. While this film has a large amount of comedy, it is at its heart a serious story about the hysteria that surrounded the spread of communism in 1950s America. It was crazy to watch Hedda Hopper to get up in a stir about reasons that are not at all apparent. The look of this film is also amazing, but primarily because it has the look of being shot on a set. Now normally that would seem quite out of place in any other film, but here it works fantastically, especially since it is about a period in film where sets were used prolifically.

The supporting cast are also wonderful, even though Cranston steals the show. Diane Lane plays Trumbo's strong supportive wife remarkably well and even though I'm not a fan of Elle Fanning, she does a good job in this movie. The same can be said of Helen Mirren. Both Louis C.K. and Michael Stuhlbarg show incredible range and in the case of Louis, he shows some incredible dramatic acting because he does not have a single joke in this movie. Also the makeup was fantastic enough to make Dean O'Gorman look exactly like Kirk Douglas.

Trumbo is one man's tribute to another. Cranston gives a performance so authentic, it's easy to hold up footage of the actual man and see how good it is. The supporting cast are also wildly brilliant.

Robin Williams Tribute Month: Jack (1996)

Many people consider this film a misstep in Francis Ford Coppola's career, but when you think about it, this is probably one of the most suitable movies for Robin Williams to star in. His high energy performance just makes the whole thing believable.

Jack Powell (Williams) is a ten-year-old boy who has a rare disease that makes him age at four times the rate of a normal human. His parents Karen and Brian (Diane Lane and Brian Kerwin) are extremely protective of Jack, but one day his private tutor, Professor Woodruff (Bill Cosby) suggests that Jack attend a public school.

At first, Jack is seen as an outcast and only his teacher Miss Marquez (Jennifer Lopez) is friendly with him. Soon enough the kids start to see him as a regular kid and they all become friends. It's a bit cheesy, but in the end it's all a bit of fun.

Williams' high energy is perfect for this role. There are some fantastic slapstick moments involving him being too big for the grade school chairs, his ability to beat the smaller kids at basketball and many others.

The other performances in this movie are pretty good as well. Although both being much younger than Williams at the time, Lane and Kerwin are great as Jack's parents and really help the movie along during some of the more emotionally driven scenes. Both Bill Cosby and Fran Drescher play against the characters that made them famous. Cosby is a bit more straight laced than usual and Drescher is not as nasal as the character she played on The Nanny.

Jack ultimately failed to perform at the box office due to its similarity to the Tom Hanks vehicle Big, but when viewed through the prism of time as a standalone movie, the message is quite touching. It was a movie that touched me deeply as a kid and after all these years, I enjoyed it again.