"Reviewer so desperate to be taken seriously, she forgets to take movies seriously."
Let me just start by saying I absolutely hate the use of words in the wrong context. How can a movie be underbaked? What does that even mean? And if its underbaked how can it be overproduced? Isn't that a contradiction? By calling it a nominal showdown is she implying there was no trading of fists and ideas between the two?
I'd like to know since when is it a mandatory requirement for a movie to be fun? Was Citizen Kane fun? Was Schindler's List fun? Was The Godfather fun? How about we start taking the movie as serious as reviewers claim its trying to be? Then people might appreciate it for what it is. Because when it comes down to it, superheroes in the real world would not be "fun". The overwhelming fears people would have if a Superman were to come to Earth would likely result in a World War II atmosphere of bomb shelters and emergency drills.
I think Hornaday missed the point of the movie suggesting Batman's and Superman's fisticuff battle was the ultimate point of the movie which is why she feels their "final confrontation" is put off. However you know what they say about assuming. Throughout the movie we see two sides of a coin, two different perspectives. We are shown the world of Superman and world of Batman and their two opposing sides. Batman has lost faith in humanity and fears the power of a god. Superman has hope in humanity but faces the wrathfulness of Man.
Hornaday calls Eisenberg's performance jittery and hysterically pitched and resembling a gnat impersonation Heath Ledger. She seems clueless about the psychology of a genius who thinks he knows better than everyone else but feels powerless because his warnings are not heeded. Her assessment also begs the question of if she has even seen The Dark Knight let alone Batman v Superman given Ledger and Eisenberg's performances are distinctly different.
While its obvious Hornaday is unfamiliar with the source materials this movie draws from, I can forgive her ignorance as I'm sure not everyone who has watched the movie have read the comics. What I can't forgive is the ignorance of obviously misguided jabs, especially when those verbose objections were suddenly turned into forthcoming lauding for Civil War for the same points. Well I'm frankly jangry at Hornaday (a term she coined) for expecting a happy, go-lucky outing and punishing the movie for not being more like Civil War which was filled with plot holes and introduced undeveloped themes. Perhaps she forgot that Civil War was a Disney movie. Someone should have reminded her that Batman v Superman was released by the same studio that brought us Argo. I find it ironic that she didn't call the destruction of New York in Avengers shamelessly opportunistic.
All meaning is lost on Hornaday as she has completely missed the psychological exploration of characters and the social and political commentary on heroes and the issues this world faces today.
Washington Post's Review:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/batman-v-superman-is-so-desperate-to-be-taken-seriously-it-forgets-to-have-fun/2016/03/23/3fb28f10-f0f5-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment