Video review: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

I remember when it was first announced a couple of years ago that Ben Affleck would play Batman in the epic throwdown between him and Superman, the fanboys lit up the Web with their ire. Turns out he’s the best thing about “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

Indeed, he’s just about the only good thing.

The D.C. Comics folks, poring over the box office grosses of the last 15 years of Marvel movies, were desperate to get their super heroes back into flicks. Really, this film is the set-up to a bunch of Justice League and solo hero movies they have planned. That’s great, but they were in too much of a hurry to get the ball rolling that they don’t properly set up this universe.

“BvS” feels like it’s in too much of a hurry, even at 2½ hours.

The premise is that Batman/Bruce Wayne is enraged over the thousands of people killed during Superman’s fight with General Zod (as chronicled in “Man of Steel”) -- including some of his own employees -- and comes to view the boy in blue as too much of a threat to have around. Of course, he’s also being manipulated by Lex Luthor, here presented as a conniving boy billionaire played by Jesse Eisenberg, who knows of such things. Imagine his Mark Zuckerberg from “The Social Network” but (slightly) more malevolent.

Soon enough the boys are at each other’s throats. It’s a fight that by any reckoning should last two seconds or less, as Superman is an immortal demi-god with laser eyes and Batman is just a regular guy with determination and a good tailor. Director Zach Snyder and scriptmen Chris Terrio David S. Goyer labor to make their combat believable.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Jeremy Irons as loyal Wayne butler Alfred and Laurence Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White are all pretty well wasted, showing up to move the plot along as needed and then disappearing for long stretches. The razzle-dazzle introduction of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is a high point; I look forward to her having her own film.

If it weren’t for Affleck, I’d call the movie a total disaster.

He’s brooding and self-doubting and tragic. He shows us a Batman who’s aging and losing faith, so we understand when he lashes out with anger. Frankly, I’ll take Affleck over Christian Bale, Michael Keaton or any other actor who’s worn the pointy ears.

So call it just a partial disaster.

Bonus features are pretty meaty. Although there’s no commentary track, there are 11 making-of featurettes: “Uniting the World’s Finest,” “Gods and Men: A Meeting of Giants,” “The Warrior, The Myth, The Wonder,” “Accelerating Design: The New Batmobile,” “Superman: Complexity & Truth,” “Batman: Austerity & Rage,” “Wonder Woman: Grace & Power,” “Batcave: Legacy of the Lair,” “The Might and the Power of a Punch,” “The Empire of Luthor” and “Save the Bats.”

In addition to the usual versions on DVD, Blu-ray and 3D, there’s an “Ultimate Edition” – also available via digital retailers -- that contains about 30 minutes of new footage.

Movie:

Extras:

DVD review: "Watchmen Director's Cut"

A quick programming note: I'm moving this review a week early; "Watchmen" hits stores on July 21.

"Watchmen," based on perhaps the greatest comic book ever, was bound to polarize audiences.

Ardent fans (like me) of the 1985 graphic novel loved director Zach Snyder's obsessively faithful adaptation of a morally ambiguous world in which super-heroes are more psychologically twisted than the villains they pursue. The rest of the cinema-going public was more or less indifferent.

Its video release is bound to cause more folks to take sides.

On July 21, it will be offered in a single-disc version that presents the theatrical version of the film. The simultaneous two-disc "Director's Cut" includes 25 minutes of additional footage, which push the run time past three hours.

That may be too much for casual audiences. But hardcore fans may want to wait until December, when an even longer "Ultimate Collector's Edition" will be released.

This will include a commentary track (absent here), a "motion comic" version of the graphic novel (already available), and "Tales of the Black Freighter," a pirate story that parallels the action in the original comic, which will be woven into the director's cut.

The extras with the director's cut are decent, but not overwhelming. There are 11 short featurettes that cover various topics on the making of the film, including how actor Billy Crudup wore a suit of glowing blue lights to portray nude superman Dr. Manhattan.

There's also a 30-minute documentary on the impact of the original comic, which includes the participation of illustrator Dave Gibbons but not writer Alan Moore, who has consistently refused to allow his name to be attached to this or any movie version of his work. And there's a music video by My Chemical Romance.

The additional 25 minutes only add to the film's richness, expanding some scenes and adding a few others that build up several main characters, especially Rorschach, the masked vigilante portrayed in a mesmerizing performance by Jackie Earle Haley. Most new scenes are integrated seamlessly, but one that stands out is the murder of Hollis Mason, aka the original Nite Owl. It packs one powerful punch.

Movie (theatrical version): 3.5 stars
Movie (director's cut): 4 stars
Extras: 3 stars

Review: "Watchmen"

I loved this movie, but I’m not sure if you will.

That’s the most honest review I can give of the film version of “Watchmen,” which to the hardcore geekarati (like me) is the Holy Grail of comic books. Probably most people have never heard of it. But to its small army of fans, the 1986 graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons represents the pinnacle of art in a medium generally dismissed as pulp confection.

Hollywood has tried and failed for years to turn out a movie translation, until now. Director Zach Snyder (who co-write the script with Alex Tse) delivers a stunning and bold vision that will in all likelihood enthrall those familiar with the graphic novel, but has an equal chance to leave non-fans mystified.

This is, after all, the super-hero comic book that subverts every tradition of the costumed hero. Set in an alternate reality of 1985 where Richard Nixon is still president and nuclear war with the Soviet Union looms, this is a world in which only one hero actually has super-powers. And the blue-skinned, all-powerful Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) strolls around naked and seems more interested in tachyons than the lives or deaths of petty humans.

Most of the “heroes” are psychological messes, like the repressed Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), or outright mental cases, like Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who walks around beneath a mask of shifting ink blots, and preys upon the criminal underworld like a rabid redeemer.

Rorschach is obsessed with punishing the wicked; helping the defenseless is just a casual by-product. He makes the Dark Knight look cuddly.

As the story opens, an older crime fighter named the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) has been murdered. The Comedian was the punch line and perpetrator of his own sick joke: He happily killed and maimed in the name of justice, whether as a costumed vigilante or pawn of the American military. Once they had served out their usefulness, though, the government outlawed super-heroes like him.

Rorschach suspects someone is offing costumed heroes, and sets about to warn his old comrades.
Most are living quietly in retirement, like Nite Owl, puttering around in his basement of super-gadgets gathering dust, and don’t want to be bothered. Dr. Manhattan is so consumed with his energy experiments that he barely acknowledges the existence of his girlfriend, Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman). Laurie is a former super-hero herself, although she only did it to follow in the footsteps of her mom, one of the original crime fighters. And Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) seems most interested in cashing in on his colorful career to build his conglomerate empire.

Without belaboring the intricate details of the plot, suffice to say that events build far beyond the concerns of a few middle-aged has-beens to the imminent destruction of all mankind.

Snyder, as he did in translating Frank Miller’s “300” to the screen, faithfully (almost obsessively) mirrors the look of the comic – right down to the gruesome, blood-spurting violence that earned “Watchmen” its very deserved R rating.

The biggest problem in putting the static novel into motion is the ensemble cast: Six main characters, each with their own layered personas and backstories. Even if the movie ran beyond its already considerable length, it would be hard to prevent some of the heroes, such as Nite Owl, from receding into the background.

And some of Snyder and Tse’s attempts to spin in topical references, such as our reliance on fossil fuels, feel forced.

The one unmitigated triumph is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach – all of the character’s mesmerizing, disturbing black-and-white code of justice is right there on the screen. (Haley even got the “hurm” right … fanboys will know what I mean.)

My guess is that “Watchmen” will polarize audiences and critics to an even greater degree than “300” did. Some people reading this are going to hate it. Others will be thrilled to see the vision of their beloved comic book breathed to cinematic life. It all depends on from where you’re watching.

3.5 stars out of four

New review this week: "Watchmen"

Back in 2001, I wrote a column explaining to readers that I was going to have a hard time remaining objective about a forthcoming movie: "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

You see, it was my favorite book. I'd loved it since childhood, so any film version would have to compete with the thousand imaginary reels that already spun through my head. I was either going to love the movie or hate it with every fiber of my being.

(I loved it, of course, as I did "The Return of the King," although I gave the middle installment, "The Two Towers," a less glowing review.)

It's time to issue another warning, because "Watchmen" is coming out this Friday. In fact, as you're reading this I've probably already seen the movie.

Alan Moore's apocalyptic tale is the Holy Grail of comic books. If ever a work deserved the snobby term of "graphic novel," this is it. It's the only comic book ever to win a Hugo Award, science fiction's highest honor. During college, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting "Watchmen" with John Milton's "Paradise Lost." (Got an A, too.)

Moore took every conceit of the costumed hero genre and turn it on its head, shattered it and subverted it. A hero who's an impotent schlub? A vigilante who takes a butcher's axe to criminals? A power-mad hero who is willing to literally destroy the village in order to save it -- times a thousand? That's the dark world of "Watchmen."

They've been trying, unsuccessfully, to make a film version almost since the book came out in 1985. Terry Gilliam, one of my favorite directors, took the longest crack at it back in the 1990s. Zach Snyder finally made it happen, although for a while it looked like a lawsuit over ownership rights to the material would keep the movie from being released. (They resolved it, just a few weeks before the opening date.)

We'll have to see if Snyder is the one to breathe "Watchmen" to life. I loved his remake of George Romero's "Day of the Dead." I had mixed feelings about "300." The serious critic in me recognized that it was a tremendously silly movie, but the 15-year-old in me loved it. We'll have to see which side prevails with "Watchmen."

I think he made the right choice in casting little-known actors in the roles; I'm not sure how audiences would react to a Bruce Willis Nite Owl or Brad Pitt as Dr. Manhattan.

I'm curious, and anxious, to see how Snyder handled a lot of the material. Are they really going to have the all-power Dr. Manhattan walk around naked? Are they going to keep the gruesome violence in place? (The film is rated R, another good sign -- watering this movie down for a PG-13 would have been criminal.)

So watch for a review of "Watchmen" this Friday. I'm hopeful, and terrified, of what I'll find.