Film Review: Justice League

"Justice League"
*** (out of ****)

All for one and one for all. Justice will be served in the DC comic book movie, "Justice League" (2017).

"Justice League", a kind of sequel, to "Batman v Superman" (2016) - an unfairly maligned comic showdown - is director Zack Snyder's continuation of themes presenting super-heroes in our modern world.

Reviewing "Batman v Superman" I wrote the movie asks, how our world would react to such beings. There was much talk of morality and what role our government should play in containing super-heroes. In "Justice League" we see a world without its great hero, Superman (Henry Cavill), and the downward spiral society falls into, over a montage played over Leonard Cohen's "Everybody Knows", with lyrics "everybody knows the war is over / everybody knows the good guys lost". And so it is no longer a question of where do super-heroes fit in our society but what will we do without them? Who will be the great defenders of justice and liberty? In her introductory scene, Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) stands atop a statue of Lady Justice. How's that for (not-so-subtle) symbolism?

In "Batman v Superman", Superman dies at the hands of Doomsday. Since that time Bruce Wayne / Batman (Ben Affleck) has blamed himself. If you recall, in that movie Batman also wanted to stop Superman. Batman now wants to find other extraordinary beings brought to his attention by Woman Woman. They include a young man, Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), who possesses great speed. He can run in a Flash! Another young man, Victor Stone (Ray Fisher), whose father brought back to life. He is now half-man, half-machine. A kind of Cyborg. And finally, a man who sleeps with the fishes, Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa). A real Aquaman!

These five heroes must band to together to restore hope to our world. They will be put to the test as a super-villain, Steppenwolf, sets out for the usual world domination (yada, yada, yada) by collecting three items known at Mother Boxes, which are some sort of energy sources, that when combined will destroy Earth as we know it. These Mother Boxes are real McGuffins, if I ever saw one (there's a word for you to look up). The Mother Boxes have been separated, as a precautionary measure. One is guarded by the Amazons, another by the Atlanteans and the third by mere humans. Will the Justice League be able to work together and be strong enough to stop Steppenwolf?

The tag-line to the movie, "You Can't Save The World Alone", using symbols from each character for different letters, is suppose to be a cute way of suggesting a group has been created. Each of the heroes will need each other. But, could the tag-line also serve as a warning to humans? Humans alone can't save the world. Humans need super-heroes. We need to have faith in super-heroes and trust they will do what is best to protect us. Their intentions are good. Just as was the case in "Batman v Superman", there is a religious undertone to this message. Superman was repeatedly referred to as a God in that movie. Losing these heroes means losing hope. Being released in 2017, after this country mistakenly believed in Donald Trump, we could use all the hope we could muster to help us believe things will get better.

It is the philosophical questions that are most interesting in "Justice League" instead of the mechanics of the plot. Other super-hero movies have attempted to broach these issues, most recently "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" (2019), but, as unpopular an opinion as it may be, neither did it as good as "Justice League". In fact, I had more fun watching "Justice League" than any of the Avenger movies I have seen, which is all of them except "Infinity War" (2018). Of course, I'm not part of the flock of sheep (movie critics) paid off by Disney to say nice things about Marvel movies.

That is kind of an ironic statement since Joss Whedon is credited as one of the screenwriters (along with Chris Terrio) for "Justice League". He wrote and directed "Avengers" (2012) and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015). Whedon also took over directing responsibilities from Snyder (uncredited) after a tragic family situation. There are definite Whedon touches. I assume this is where much of the movie's humor comes from. It is a contrast in tone from the opening moments, which I assume Snyder was responsible for. There is a Snyder cut of "Justice League" but it is uncertain if the public will ever see it.

Putting aside the "inside baseball"; reported issues Terrio had with re-writes. Changes in Warner Brothers executives. Demands to keep the movie at two hours. Adapting "Justice League" to appease the negative response sheep (movie critics) had for "Batman v Superman", the movie still has moments that work. Without being able to compare and contrast this version with Snyder's, I can only judge what we have before us.

One thing "Justice League", "Batman v Superman" and all the Marvel movies are missing is that Tim Burton touch. There are little, if any, truly arresting visuals in any of these movies. Everything is CGI. Looking back on it, Burton really created something unique in "Batman" (1989), making Gotham City a character. Visualizing Gotham as an outward extension of the disturbed mind-view of its characters. Nothing in today's comic book adaptations do that. They are all essentially making video games.

To the extent most sheep were able to praise "Justice League", a lot if it went towards Gadot and Miller's performances. And, they are good. Miller is heavily used as comic relief. Outside of the jokes however, there isn't much of a character there. If viewers have not seen "Wonder Woman" (2017) before seeing this, the movie hints at a background story of her past. It indicts there is something much deeper about this character to be explored. Gadot probably comes out best among all the performances. On the opposite spectrum, Jason Momoa comes out the worst. There is no sense of who this character is. There would be a stand alone movie made the following year, "Aquaman" (2018), which hopefully explained his origins (I haven't seen it). 

Wasted this time around are Jeremy Irons as Alfred, in an interpretation of the character far different from what we are accustom to. He is not a butler but an active partner working alongside Batman. There is very little for Alfred to do however. Was an actor of the stature of Jeremy Irons needed for the role? Amy Adams has even less to do as Lois Lane and poor Diane Lane, as Martha Kent, is reduced to a couple of scenes. Laurence Fishburne was completely eliminated.

Once again I remain unimpressed with Henry Cavill in the role of Superman. He didn't make much of an impression on me in "Batman v Superman" and thankfully his character is absent the first hour of this movie. Both times I have seen Cavill in the role, I feel he doesn't flesh out the character. It is always characters reacting to the idea of Superman and the character doing very little. Ben Affleck settles into the role of Batman nicely. The movie explores his limitations of being the only individual without a super-power. He and the Flash are the only humans in the group. How much longer will Batman be part of the Justice League?

Although slightly uneven in tone, thanks to the change in the directors and pressure from the studio, though the two hour running time is welcomed (Did "Endgame" really need to be three hours?), "Justice League" has more moments that work than don't. Despite efforts to turn this into an imitation of the Avengers (Joss Whedon), I found "Justice League" far more entertaining. It attempts to ask questions in a more adult-ish way than the Marvel movies. I also just simply like Batman and Wonder Woman as characters. I look forward to an eventual sequel.

Top Ten Films Of 2019!

"That's not cinema" said Martin Scorsese, during an interview with Empire magazine, when discussing Marvel comic book movies. Fanboys protested. It set the stage for a years long debate and became one of the most talked about statements in movie circles of the year. It prompted filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola to chime in and declare Marvel movies "despicable".

Who is right in this debate? Are comic book movies cinema?  What was the state of cinema in 2019? To me, there isn't anything artistic about comic book movies. They are essentially CGI extravaganzas. Some have compared them to video games. Scorsese and Coppola are trying to say comic book movies have no soul. The characters don't touch our hearts. There is nothing personal about watching Hollywood "events" with hundreds of millions of dollar budgets ever so reliant upon special effects. Is great cinema a thing of the past? Good movies are out there, but they are the movies audiences shun. And that was even before there was a pandemic! It's the chicken or the egg paradox. Do mainstream audiences simply have "bad taste" or does Hollywood lack originality? Is Hollywood feeding the public with what it wants, or have the masses been brainwashed and conditioned to accept what Hollywood has to offer?

Lets take a look at the top five highest grossing movies of 2019. In order: "Avengers: Endgame", "The Lion King", "Frozen II", "Spider-Man: Far From Home" and "Captain Marvel". Three comic book adaptations, two of which are part of an on-going series. Another is a sequel and one is a remake. When we branch out and look at the top ten movies, seven of them were released by Disney. What does this tell us? For one thing, one studio dominates the box-office. Two, franchises appear to be popular. The movie-going public likes recognizable faces and familiar stories. Each of these movies grossed more than a billion dollars world-wide. Movie making is big business. Any debate about artistic merit in Hollywood versus commercial mainstream appeal is a debate only among college film majors. The discussion is over.

That's not to say 2019 was a bad year for the movies. It wasn't great, there have been better years, but good movies were out there. It took some hunting. Curious cinematic appetites. But, they were out there.

Critically, the most praised movie of the year, in terms of its appearance on year end "top ten" lists, was the South Korean movie, "Parasite". A darling of the political left. Their profuse admiration was a bit head scratching to me. Spoiler - it will not appear on my list. It became the first international film to win the best picture Academy Award. Other highly praised movies included Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood", Scorsese's "The Irishman", "Marriage Story" and "Uncut Gems". The most nominated movie at the Oscars was  "The Joker" - yet another movie dealing with a comic book character - that scored 11 nominations.

As I always say, cinema is a reflection of the world around us. For some, the last couple of years have been trying with Herr Chancellor Trump in the White House. Have the movies caught up to Trump yet? Meaning, has Hollywood been making movies critiquing Trump, in the same way they went after George W. Bush? Sort of. In a more subtle way. The only direct attack that instantly comes to mind was Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 11/9" (2018). Instead, we have gotten movies addressing the issues of the Trump era without saying his name. Movies about social unrest, corporate corruption, racial tension, police brutality, etc. Every movie on my list, in one way or another, is a critique of the world we live in. The ways in which the working class are being taken advantage of. Movies have become increasingly political in the last 20 years. A movement that seems to have started with documentaries, which aren't even documentaries as previously defined, but political essays. Everything is politics. Even those comic book movies.

The unrest and divide in our society is real and reflected in our movies. Not since 2015 (see my top ten list here) have movies been as angry. Politics has a lot to do with that. As well as the miserable state of our media (it's not "fake news", it is just bad corporate controlled news). But, again, is it a chicken or the egg paradox? What came first? The anger or the bad politicians and the distorted news? Where would cable news be if it didn't stir up anger? If it didn't take political sides (which is much different than reporting facts)? What would happen if the news networks didn't take their orders from the corporations that owned them? What would happen if the news anchors didn't regurgitate DNC (Democratic National Committee) or RNC (Republican National Committee) talking points? What would happen if we held the news analyst responsible, you know, like we always say about the meteorologist? Why are these people invited back on TV after their predictions are wrong and they don't have to publicly admit it? What would happen to the Sunday morning talk shows?

This isn't a political rant. It has festered into our movies - the lies, manipulation, corruption. We aren't quite at the peak as we were in the 1970s, when filmmakers and the studios were more socially conscious, but it is all bubbling. When will it explode? If movies are a true reflection of our world, I have a feeling the upcoming presidential election will be contentious.

Lastly, I'd like to mention the sad goodbyes of the year. There are fewer and fewer names left of the giants of cinema's past. Some of the artists we said goodbye to in 2019 included: Doris Day, Stanley Donen, Tim Conway, filmmaker Dusan Makavejev, Ingmar Bergman regular Bibi Andersson, Bruno Ganz, Albert Finney, filmmaker Franco Zeffirelli, Danny Aiello, Rip Torn, Peter Fonda, composer Michel Legrand, filmmaker Agnes Varda, Seymour Cassel, Robert  Forster, Carol Channing, filmmaker John Singleton and Robert Walker Jr.

Here is my list of the best films of 2019!

1. DARK WATERS (U.S.; Dir. Todd Haynes) - Based on the true story of a corporation (DuPont) contaminating a town's water supply. The movie seemed to be an early award favorite and critical darling. And then everything suddenly cooled off. The movie, starring Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway and Tim Robbins, never found an audience. Before any right-wing critics try to pollute the conversation with their RNC approved talking points, of this being nothing more than a liberal Hollywood fantasy, I would like to turn your attention to a recent Chicago Tribune article on the EPA's lack of enforcement of clean water laws (click here). As reported, "U.S. Steel dumped a plume of cancer-causing metal into a Lake Michigan tributary 20 miles away from a Chicago drinking water intake." Trump's EPA will not punish the company. In fact, per the article, there has been a systematic decline in cases filed since Trump took office, despite "the number of chronic violators in heavy industrialized states skyrocketing". This story was published in yesterday's paper.

Events like the ones depicted in "Dark Waters" are not the stuff of liberal Hollywood pipe-dreams. They are a daily reality, many choose not to pay attention to. No one is held accountable. The government won't help. They have been bought and paid for by these corporations. DuPont even wanted to take legal action against the movie.

Haynes is best known for films' reflecting on and challenging social conventions - "Far From Heaven" (2002) and "Carol" (2015), which both received multiple Oscar nominations. Here he has created a real rabble-rouser. No film released this year got me quite as worked up. A real shame the sheep (movie critics) and the studio didn't push it for award recognition.

2. LES MISERABLES (France; Dir. Ladj Ly) - A timely story revolving around the vicious cycle between police brutality and the working class. Do police monitor these areas because that's where the crime and violence is, or does their presence invoke it?

This French drama, directed by Lady Ly in his feature-length debut, was the country's official Oscar entry. Unfortunately losing to the over-hyped "Parasite".

While the film borrows its title from Victor Hugo's famed novel it is not really an adaption. Although both stories deal with a working-class uprising.

The film ends on a chilling image, capturing the seemingly pessimistic nature of the environment.

3. OFFICIAL SECRETS (U.K.; Dir. Gavin Hood) - Government lies and media manipulation are at the center of director Gavin Hood's fact based drama.

Starring Keira Knightly as a GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) employee who leaks a memo regarding the United States wanting to put pressure on the UN to secure votes for a resolution on the Iraq War in 2003. The US was going to spy on foreign diplomats.

Like Haynes in "Dark Waters", Hood uses the thriller genre to address social issues and tells an extremely important and unfortunate story (only because so many seem to have forgotten recent history). It becomes an important reminder and wake-up call. Never forget, when it truly matters, the media works at the behest of the government to consolidate their lies. To this day, society is dealing with the repercussions of this deliberate policy failure. Has anything been learned? The presidential nominee for the Democratic Party is a man who voted for the war and the Patriot Act (legislation allowing government surveillance).

Gavin Hood previously directed the Oscar winner Tsotsi (2005) and the politically charged thriller, Rendition (2007). Once again the sheep (movie critics) didn't push the movie. "Avengers: Endgame" made more top ten lists than this movie. Its award recognition was limited and weak. No Oscar nominations or Golden Globes. This despite a truly powerful performance from Knightly and a makes-your-blood-boil screenplay.

4. A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD (U.S.; Dir. Marielle Heller) - The story of Mr. Rogers meeting Esquire journalist Tom Junod is painstakingly heartfelt. In a year when many complained about the lack of female representation in the best director Oscar category, Ms. Heller, was wrongly overlooked. Tom Hanks however earned his Oscar nomination. In today's angry times, here is a nice reminder there are still good people in the world.

5. SHADOW (China; Dir. Zhang Yimou) - One of my favorite filmmakers working today, Zhang Yimou, rarely fails to impress. This "Prince and the Pauper"-ish story is no exception with its breathtaking visuals!

The movie is a return to form for Yimou, whose previous efforts included English language dramas; "The Great Wall" (2016) and "The Flowers of War" (2011).

6. AMERICAN FACTORY (U.S.; Dirs: Steven Bognar & Julia Reichert) - A "political essay", produced by Barack and Michelle Obama's production company, Higher Grounds. Quick, cue right-wing hysteria and complaints about a liberal media.

Hitting on themes addressing culture clash, globalization and outsourcing, "American Factory" is an honest representation of the times and the frustration of the working class. In many ways that led to the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. How strange that conservatives wouldn't like it. For me, this was far more effective than "Parasite", showing the vicious cycle of the economy's toll.

It was quite the year for Netflix, distributing titles like this one, "The Irishman" and "Marriage Story"; showing how the movie business is changing.

7. THE IRISHMAN (U.S.; Dir. Martin Scorsese) - The old gang is back together again in this Martin Scorsese crime drama starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel. Do I seriously have to say more to get you interested to watch this?

Based on Charles Brandt's memoir, "I Heard You Paint Houses" the movie is a fitting addition to the Scorsese cannon, addressing themes of redemption and guilt.

8. BOMBSHELL (U.S.; Dir. Jay Roach) - "Liberal Hollywood"'s contribution to the #MeToo movement and a good excuse to criticize Fox News, the film focuses on the sexual harassment culture, seemingly (secretly) approved by the network.

The film features an incredible performance from Charlize Theron. I always over-look Theron as one of our great actresses and then I see a movie like this. Theron plays journalist Megyn Kelly and as far as I am concerned, gets lost in the role. Theron becomes Kelly. She should have won an Oscar. She might have too, in a year that didn't have Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland.

But credit must be given to the rest of the cast, including Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie and John Lithgow as Roger Ailes. Like "The Irishman", the performances across the board are excellent.

Unfortunately, Charles Randolph's script wasn't nominated for an Oscar. He also co-wrote "The Big Short" (2015), for which he did win the Oscar. The director, Jay Roach, may be known for the comedies, "Austin Powers" (1997), "Meet the Parents" (2000) and "Meet the Fockers" (2004). He has dipped his toe into the political waters, with varying success - "The Campaign" (2012) bad, "Recount" (2008) and "Trumbo" (2015) better.

9. TOY STORY 4 (U.S.; Dir. Josh Cooley) - The toys are back for one more adventure.Somehow it doesn't feel like a cash grab from Disney / Pixar, even though it is. Perhaps it has to do with this being an emotional, well told story. Yet, the magic of Pixar seems to have worn off for the sheep (movie critics) who don't trip over themselves in their praise. Luckily, it still won the best animated film Oscar.

You might say it is overreaching, but we could interpret this story as the story of workers, learning our place and value in the world and coming to the sad realization when we are no longer needed and must let go.

A  sad, final (?) goodbye to the toys that have touched us, real and animated.

10. THE TWO POPES (U.K. / Italy; Dir. Fernando Meirelles) - Another Netflix gem, brought to us by the gifted Brazilian filmmaker, Fernando Meirelles, best known for "City of God" (2002).

This Oscar nominated movie stars Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict XVI and Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis. A fascinating conversation ensues on the role of religion and which direction the Catholic Church should go in. Somehow religion and politics seem to be connected. Which direction should the church go in, which direction should the country go in? Which ideology (theology) should we be ruled by?

Finally, I have to give HONORABLE MENTION to some titles that didn't make my list, but, I really wanted to celebrate in some way.

11. BE NATURAL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ALICE-GUY BLACHE (U.S.; Dir. Pamela B. Green) - A fascinating documentary about a forgotten pioneer in the early days of cinema and perhaps the first female director ever.

There is so much being written and rewritten regarding the history of cinema. Within this story we hit on larger social themes. Who writes history? How is it compiled? The role and acceptance (or lack) of women in a male dominated industry.

12. ANNABELLE COMES HOME (U.S.; Dir. Gary Dauberman) - Another entry into the "Conjuring Universe" and the "Annabelle" franchise. Is it a coincidence "Toy Story 4" and this movie are on the same list?

A tightly constructed horror movie.

13. PETERLOO (U.K.; Dir. Mike Leigh) - A historical drama based on the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, released on the 200th anniversary of the horrific event in which the British government violently reacted to a peaceful protest of workers standing up for representation. A reminder that the powerful are cruel and violent and will use any means necessary to stop the working class.

Some things never change.

14. QUEEN & SLIM (U.S.; Dir. Melina Matsoukas) - A  "road movie" not about reaching a destination, but the journey of life.

Like "Les Miserables" an examination of police brutality in black & brown communities. It is also a study of identity.

The director, Matsoukas, is another female that could have been nominated for an Oscar.

15. THE FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (Canada; Dir. Denys Arcand) - A satirical look at the U.S. economy and the ways in which the rich and powerful "protect" their money.

16. THE NIGHTINGALE (Australia; Dir. Jennifer Kent) - Kent's follow-up to "The Babadook" (2014) looks at motherhood, colonialism and race. At times deeply emotional and raw, it is a roller-coaster of a movie.

17. A RAINY DAY IN NEW YORK (U.S.; Dir. Woody Allen) - Unfortunately not released in the U.S. (thanks to today's token liberalism) I was still able to see a copy of the film. "A Rainy Day In New York" is an old-fashion love story set in a modern world. A surprisingly effective performance from Selena Gomez is a highlight (I never thought I'd ever write such a thing). Hopefully one day American audiences will be able to see the movie (it has been released in Europe).

Film Review: Batman v Superman

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Gods and monsters.

Men want to turn Gods into humans and turn themselves into Gods in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016).

"Things fall. Things on earth. And what falls, is fallen." These words are spoken by Bruce Wayne / Batman (Ben Affleck), in narration, at the beginning of filmmaker Zack Snyder's super-hero epic. Putting aside the sophomoric nature of the writing (and some people had the audacity to say art-house, international filmmakers such as Theo Angelopoulos and Ingmar Bergman wrote pretentious dialogue) lets think about the words, while also considering the movie's full title.

Things fall. What does that mean? Has "justice" fallen? One definition of the word "dawn", means to begin. Has the world been without justice? Things fall. Does this mean physical things, falling down? The words are spoken over a sequence explaining the origins of Batman, witnessing the death of his parents. Where was justice? In slow motion we see Bruce's father fall to the ground, after being hit with a bullet. We see the bullet fall to the ground. We see Bruce's mother fall to the ground, along with her broken pearl necklace. And, a young Bruce Wayne falls down, into a grave. Of course when things fall, they get up. In that grave Bruce Wayne has fallen into, an army of bats lift him out of the grave, as the narration explains, and took him into the light. A bright shiny light. Is that light goodness? Is it justice? God?

Of course, "Dawn of Justice" could just be a teaser, implying the movie is simply a set-up for the formation of the Justice League. During that tragic night, when Bruce's parents are killed, they are seen leaving a movie theatre. It is 1981 however there is a poster of 1940's "The Mark of Zorro" and the marquee shows "Excalibur" (1981) is playing. That was a movie about King Arthur and the knights of the round table. A new group of knights will band together now. Zorro was a man that fought for the oppressed. With these two movie posters, Snyder and "Batman v Superman" have foreshadowed their story and shown us all their cards.

The movie jumps ahead, as an adult Bruce Wayne, makes his way to Metropolis. Superman (Henry Cavill) is fighting General Zod, as Wayne hectically tries to have employees evacuate one of his buildings. It is too late. Tragedy ensues. Where is justice? How could this God-like creature, Superman, allow this to happen? How can salvation and devastation exist at the same time?

This is an analysis of the first five minutes of "Batman v Superman" and the questions central to the movie. Each character tries to answer these questions. Some draw dangerous conclusions. Others political. Too few, heroic.

"Batman v Superman", despite a box-office, of more than $870 million, was considered a failure. The movie didn't live up to the expectations of teenage fanboys. The title of the movie suggest a showdown between Batman and Superman. A fight to the finish. Instead the movie takes a more serious approach. A realistic (?) approach, examining how our world would react to these figures. The big showdown doesn't happen until 100 minutes into this 150 minute movie.

The sheep (movie critics) weren't any better. The movie scored a mere 28% approval rating on the website, Rotten Tomatoes, out of 415 reviews. They complained about too many special effects (ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Did this movie have any more effects than any other comic book movie?), the serious tone of the plot, calling it "humorless" and a "drag". Of course, when the sheep were given the go ahead to praise Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (2008), they praised it to the moon and back. There they loved the serious nature of the movie and the "moral complexities" presented.

That isn't to say however, "Batman v Superman" is a great movie. It isn't. In fact it suffers from the same things as "The Dark Knight". The movie goes on too long. The moral questions at its center become repetitive. This movie did not need to be 2 hours and 30 minutes. Trim 40 minutes of the movie and you might be dealing with a masterpiece. An astonishing comment, coming from me.

In this movie, Batman has been fighting crime in Gotham City for 20 years, and presented a lot older than we usual expect. He has made it his mission to stop Superman. An alien with supernatural powers, who seems to answer to no one. At least that is the concern of the government, and in particular, Sen. Finch (Holly Hunter). The government needs to figure out a way to make Superman bend at the knee, and become obedient. Should they enlist the help of Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, whose presence I am sure was meant to make us think of his role in "The Social Network" (2010), where he played another ego-maniac, out for world domination)? He has managed to obtain Kryptonite, Superman's weakness, which the government can use as a precautionary measure against the man of steel.

This, within itself, is a commentary on power. Who has it and how can we control it? Given Superman is God-like, is there also not a question of spirituality? Talking heads are seen on TV debating Superman's power and his moral responsibility. Is believing in the goodness of Superman, the same as believing in God? A divine being, protecting us. Or is Batman right? Men create the world they want to live in. The movie, repeatedly, sets up the confrontation between Batman and Superman as Man versus God.

The media is another target of the movie. We see Perry White (Laurence Fishburne), editor of the Daily Planet, assign stories to reporters. He gives them the headlines and they have to write the article. This is sensationalism. Movie fans, think of it this way. It is like coming up with the title of the movie, before writing it. The title should be attention grabbing and commercial, to appeal to a mainstream audience. Then write the script to match the title. The media in "Batman v Superman" consistently stir up unnecessary conflicts and report improper motives.

While all of these commentaries are fine and good, I am growing more and more annoyed with this notion that comic books, and their movie counterparts, are the new great American literature, and bastions of political and cultural discourse. How about Hollywood make movies dealing with these themes without men in capes? I've tried to be a good obedient boy and give these super-hero movies a second and third try, and while I can appreciate some, when will enough be enough? Do you know what the top grossing movie of 2019 was? "Avengers: Endgame" (2019). Know what the top grossing movie of 2018 was? "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018). Know what it was in 2016, the year "Batman v Superman" was released? "Captain America: Civil War" (2016).

And, the commentaries are never profound. As in "The Dark Knight" and again here, a kind of Sophie's Choice is presented. How much destruction is Superman willing to cause in order to save the woman he loves, Lois Lane (Amy Adams)? In "The Dark Knight" situations like this were created over and over again and yet some dare call it, one of the greatest movies they have ever seen. Sheep and some in the public, did cartwheels and somersaults, tripping over themselves in praise of "Black Panther" (2018). Why? Sure, I could see the commentary on identity but what of it? Shamefully the movie was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture. Are the expectations for these movies so low, they merely have to hint on a theme to be championed as profound and relevant?

One of the bright spots in "Batman v Suprman" was the appearance of Gal Gadot, as Diana Prince. She is a woman with a secret past, hunting down Lex Luthor, for possible information he may have on her. By the end of the movie, she is revealed to be Wonder Woman, though that name is never used. She will be, seemingly, the glue that brings the Justice League together.

I also found Ben Affleck to be good in the movie. His casting was quite a controversy when announced. He simply put, didn't look the part. After understanding the interpretation of the character this time around, Affleck is suitable in the role. Questions involving the character's age, were erased from my mind, and I bought Affleck in the role. It is not the most fleshed out characterization of Batman I have seen on-screen, but, Affleck does present the character's concern realistically. A stand alone movie, with Affleck as star and director, never panned out. Robert Pattinson took over the role with a release date re-scheduled for next year.

On the other hand, Henry Cavill never stood out in the role and made an impression. Everyone in the movie reacts to the idea of Superman, but the character Superman actually has little to do plot-wise. I didn't time it but I am willing to bet Bruce Wayne / Batman has more screen time than Clark Kent / Superman. If I'm wrong, it only goes to prove how little of an impression was made on me.

One can admire director Snyder, and screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, attempting to change the tone of the super-hero movie, to something more adult-ish. Clearly that decision however is what causes DC movies to lack the positive fanfare of the Marvel movies. "Justice League" (2017) wasn't as playful as Avenger movies either. When DC goes playful, "Wonder Woman" (2017), the results are much more positive. I must admit, I enjoyed "Wonder Woman" quite a bit. Moreso than "Captain Marvel" (2019), that other female led super-hero movie.

Movie fans may find they might enjoy this movie a bit more a second time around. Now they will realize the movie isn't going to be a light, breezy, action packed showdown between the two super-heroes. Eliminating preconceive notions, you can pay better attention to what is actually going on, on-screen, and read into the story.

"Batman v Superman" was the second movie in the DC Extended Universe, coming after "Man of Steel" (2013), and has its good points. I am on the fence. I see the larger themes the movie wants to hit on but feel it doesn't make any grand statements. What is it all supposed to amount to? Why should I care? Are we putting too much importance on comic book movies?