"Long before reading this review, creative exhaustion made it predictable."
Joshua Rothkopf starts off by stating that Batman v Superman is a strenuously empty movie. Of course he elaborates on what that means, but lets take them one by one.
"There's zero humor or self-deprecation, as there was in Joss Whedon's pitch-perfect The Avengers". This just blows my mind. Not only is Rothkopf setting certain expectaions for Batman v Superman to be similar to The Avengers (a far from perfect movie) even though they are completely different comic universes with different types of stories and rules, but he condemns it for not saturating the movie with jokes (while overlooking the jokes that are there) and for not trivializing itself and the moralities and social commentary it invokes.
"...no performance of unlikely depth, like the one Heath Ledger pulled off in The Dark Knight". I could argue that Jessie Eisenberg filled this role gloriously depicting a genius psychotic will delusions of grandeur. I could even argue that Affleck's performance as Batman had unlikely depth as the masses were skeptical that he could pull off the dual personas let alone with such passion and flair. But instead I'll argue that a performance of "unlikely depth" implies a character or actor isn't expected to have depth which is a shortcoming of the viewer, not of the character or actor.
"...no animating spirit of decency, a trait Christopher Reeve's Superman had in spades." No one can argue that Christopher Reeve's performance as Superman was anything but uplifting. However Cavill's self-sacrifice during his pivotal moment of character growth is an exemplary example of an animating spirit of decency.
Rothkopf reveals his lack of understanding of what's going on in the film when he attacks each character. He calls Clark Kent inertness, but this play a part in Superman's frustration: his inability to make change within the system is an underlying element of Superman's struggle. He calls Bruce Wayne one-dimensionally vexed, but this is due to the culmination of losses he has suffered along with being manipulated into making Superman's death his sole purpose, a conflict which is leading him down a dark path of villainy. The meeting of Clark and Bruce facilitates both a trading of ideas and an ironic scenario when you finally realize Lex was dangling them like puppets having the knowledge of each of their identities. Rothkopf also mocked Eisenberg's Lex Luthor erroneously claiming he was tic-laden and clearly not understanding the meaning and significance behind "The red capes are coming!" calling it screenwriter-ese. And finally Rothkopf fails to see the importance of Lois' role both in discovering Lex's involvement in the African incident and in bringing resolution to Batman's misguided onslaught, not to mention being Superman's world!
Here is yet another critic undermining Lex's elaborite scheme by suggesting the explosion of Capitol Hill was glib. Rothkopf complains that Wonder Woman could use some complexity, but her role in the overall story is tangential, a type of role which I'm sure Rothkopf is familiar with given his praise of Marvel's Avengers and Spider-man's recent foray in Civil War. The fact that there is much todo about the lives lost during the African incident refutes Rothkopf's claims that the script has a lack of human stakes. Rothkopf is right about one thing: "We all know superheroes don't die, not when there are reboots in the balance". However Snyder knows this and doesn't pretend to lead the audience on giving us a glimpse of those final grains of dirt floating above Superman's coffin.
TIME OUT's Review:
http://www.timeout.com/us/film/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice
No comments:
Post a Comment