Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice

Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice

This movie is confusing. The plot lines are like pick up sticks strewn about. Scenes appear to be helter skelter and transitioning is not obvious (no I did not fall asleep…I think). There is mayhem galore and a bit too violent for PG-13; I think the PG-13 was a push for the sake box office. Most of the movie is dark and violent. Except for two funny lines (which are in the trailer) the movie is basically humorless.

Henry Cavill reprises his Superman persona from the Man of Steel film. Good hearted as always and Clark Kent is still a nerd (but better dressed). Lois Lane as played by Amy Adams has a relationship with Superman.  My hope soared when there was a potent hot seen between Superman and Lois, but they kept their clothes on.

Ben Affleck’s Batman is grim. His battles with Superman and others were brutal. Batman wears bulky armor that resembles the Lego Batman. The biggest miscasting is Jeremy Irons as Bruce Wayne’s butler Alfred. Irons is devoid of humility and if you want a cup of coffee you better get it yourself.

Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luther was extremely annoying with his twitchy dialogue and piercing unnerving glares. His interpretation of the character is off the mark. Also Lex Luther with a mop of hair is anathema.

Wonder Woman is played by Gal Gadot, a former Miss Israel and super model. She played the sexy Brazilian cop in the Fast and the Furious movie. I have a problem, TV’s Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter (with her boom boom hips), is imprinted on my brain as the WW archetype.  Gadot makes a great model but is too thin to be a super hero; she has a credibility problem. A Subway sandwich has more meat on it than she does.

This movie is not terrible, just bad in places. The film is bullet proof, it has already broken box office records. It needs to clear $800m before it is in the black, which it will probably get. The challenge for the studios is selling the other lesser DC hero movies (including WW) which are coming soon. If you are part of the Fan base you will be forgiving of the movie’s short comings. Otherwise Downton Abbey is on demand.

Eye in the Sky

Eye in the Sky

This film had lofty ideas but it fell flat on its face. The movie focuses on the politicization of a drone attack targeting high level terrorists and conflicting with the military agenda. The politicians and the military are at odds on how to proceed with the drone strike. The politicians are incapable of making a decision and play political hot potato deferring to their superiors. This goes on for a while and instead of creating an atmosphere of suspense it becomes tedious.

Helen Mirren is the Colonel impatiently waiting for the go ahead.  Alan Rickman is the liaison Lt. General dealing with the politicians. Arron Paul is the drone pilot. Barkhad Abdi plays Jama Farah, a Kenyan undercover agent (he was a pirate in the Captain Philips movie). There really is not much acting going on in the war room. As this may be his last film it is sad to see Rickman sitting in the war room trying to get bickering officials to reach agreement.  If this feckless bunch were hunting Osama Bin Laden he would still be in Pakistan collecting a pension.

There is more action during the drone strike. The deployment of the missile is delayed because of collateral damage; in this case one person. This caused another round of indecision and procrastination. Targeting the safe house had to be recalculated to Helen Mirren’s consternation.  

How they handled collateral damage is the movie’s moral lynch pin. Not to be too callus, collateral damage depends on what end of the attack you are on. To prevent another terrorist attack would you accept the cost of collateral damage?

10 Cloverfield Lane

10 Cloverfield Lane

In 2008 the movie Cloverfield was released. I assumed 10 Cloverfield Lane was either a prequel or a sequel. No, this is a “spiritual successor”. I told my son I never heard of this expression and he said it is because I am old. For those of you too embarrassed to ask, here is the definition:

A Spiritual Successor is a type of sequel that is not part of the same world or story as its predecessor, but is nonetheless considered to be a successor because it's made by the same creators; shares common themes, styles, or elements; or, most likely, both. In other words, it's a sequel "in spirit.

This is a doomsday/sci-fi movie. There are three principles: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr. The small ensemble sustains the movie’s tension and focus. Goodman plays Harold the farmer turned doomsday fanatic who constructs a bunker. Winstead plays Michelle, who is rescued by Howard after an auto accident and taken to his bunker. Gallagher plays Emmett who is a farm worker who stows away in the bunker.

The essence of the movie is you are not sure what is real. Is Goodman really a survivalist or is he totally unbalanced. Is the atmosphere toxic or this is what Goodman wants you to believe? Is he benevolent or does he want to keep Michelle and Emmett captive? Conflicting clues support both positions.

Goodman usually plays the happy fat guy. He is terrific in this role as the doomsday fanatic.  He does not over play the role. I am not familiar with Winstead’s work but she played her role well showing vulnerability and grit. The movie has an atmosphere of suspense. Unexpected things happen making you jump. The film holds your attention completely.

 My one critique is the set up took a little bit too long. If Alfred Hitchcock did a sci-fi/end of the world thriller it would resemble this film. For fear of life and limb I will not say more about the plot (there is lots more). Hint, during the last half hour do not go to the bathroom.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

There must be a special place in hell for people who make misleading movie trailers. This movie is falsely advertised as a Tina Fey comedy. The Tina Fey part is true, the comedy part is false. This film is a dull Afghan war correspondent movie with hints of comedy. The majority of these comedic gems can be seen for free in movie and TV ads. What is left is a listless war film without direction or heart (they needed two directors for this film, only God knows why).

Tina Fey is a news writer from New York who volunteers to go to Afghanistan as a war correspondent and stays for three years. She becomes addicted to the rush of war. All the clichés are present. She catches her fiancés being unfaithful on Skype (wait, that’s funny); there are torrid alcoholic infused parties (no Talibans were harmed in the making of this movie); casual and uncasual sex; the horrors of war, but not too many since this is a comedy.

Why do they need A listed stars to make this shlock? Margot Robbie is the camp trampoline; Billy Bob Thornton is the tough but soft hearted general; Martin Freeman is the hard drinking Scottish photo journalist who is Fay’s lover. In the Hobbit he plays Bilbo Baggins; now Bilbo having sex that’s funny! Alfred Molina plays a corrupt Afghan minister who is nearly unrecognizable with his beard and hair blending into one big mop.

So why did I go see this movie? Tina Fey is a smart and funny comedian, so I went with the brand. Too bad movies do not come with a list of ingredients.