Batman V Superman: Why the Critics got it Wrong

There were 9 of us. Most adults, with one kid. It was a good mix of non fans, comic book movie fans, comic book fans, Marvel fans and DC fans. After the movie, we had question.

What the fuck were the critics smoking?

BvS is sitting with a 30% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes. That is lower than Daredevil. Lower than Batman Forever. Lower than Spider Man 3 (by half!). Lower than Rise of The Silver Surfer!

That is also, insane.

At it's worst, the movie is divisive. It has some incredible strengths, and major weaknesses. The reviews have been out for a few days, so it's pointless to add to that mix. However, going through them both before and after watching the movie I feel they don't provide an accurate portrayal of what the movie is like. So instead of doing another straightforward review, let me take some specific aspects, address their critiques and devil's advocate the shit out of the movie.

But first, the short review roundup, in case you don't want to scroll through the wall of text below, because oh FUCK I have so much to say.

Mini Review Begins----------------------------

I think the movie is a perfectly enjoyable summer blockbuster that occasionally stumbles only because it tries loftier things than the average summer blockbuster. It asks some hard questions, and tries to make a point beyond "Bad person has upgraded version of my power/suit. Now we must fight!" That makes it interesting. More than that, it imbues the movie with a sense of ambition and scope which many superhero movies lack. It features largely good acting, phenomenal cinematography and action and an interesting plot that doesn't simply reheat the last superhero movie.

The biggest problem, I felt, was that it does not know who to please. For example, the first time Wonder Woman showed up, the people in our group who didn't follow comic books at all (a.k.a. the casuals a.k.a. the demographic DC has to please to have a hope in hell of making the movie successful financially) were confused. Why was this random woman who, so far, seemed to exclusively attend parties wearing clothes that never had enough material to cover the back, suddenly fighting with a sword and a shield? This was not an obscure reference - Wonder Woman is a core part of the final battle, and the casual audience has no clue who she is! Similarly, a lot of Luthor's motivation becomes a lot clearer once you know his character from the comics.

On the other hand, the movie deviates from the generally accepted canon regarding character and motivation waaaaay too much, and we all know how rational comic book fans are about such things. See, in this version, Luthor is a twitchy, neurotic maniac. In this version, Batman's "no-killing" rule is more relaxed than the dress code at a pajama party. In this version, Superman isn't a big blue beacon of hope.

How much you enjoy the movie will depend on your preconceived notions. See, this is a movie that requires SOME knowledge of these characters and their history. Nothing that can't be cleared up after a five-minute conversation with your comic-book loving friend. If, however, you are a stickler for how they are in the comic books, this movie is the equivalent of an abusive spouse who is also great in bed. It will make you incredibly happy, and incredibly sad, until you are a confused, seething mess of drool and rage.

Mini Review Ends----------------------------

Ok, so let's get down to business, dissect the movie and the critique, and see why Batman V Superman is worth your time. Because holy fuck, it's worth your time.


Cast and Acting:
This, very few reviews had problems with. Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot are the highlights, in spite of Gadot's limited screen time, while Jeremy Irons is a brilliant Alfred. More dour and snarky and less fatherly than Caine or Michael Gough. This is an Alfred that has given up on trying to make Bruce realise that dressing up like a bat to punch criminals is crazy, and is now focused on keeping him alive. Amy Adams does not have much to do, but even then, adds humanity to Henry Cavil's Superman. Cavil himself is a blank slate, looks adequately like a brick wall and delivers a steady and unmemorable performance.

The divisive one here is Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor and well....I didn't hate him. I can see how his performance, affected as it is, will rub fans the wrong way, but for non fans who don't have any idea of the suave, cruel Lex Luthor, Eisenberg is fine and even a little magnetic. I've seen him compared to the Joker; however, this Luthor is teetering on an edge of insanity, whereas Joker has already gleefully jumped in. Moreover, I found that the Machiavellian aspects of his character has been left intact. Luthor is, after all, the master of the long game, and here, it's apparent that he has been playing for years.

The Tone:
"Grim". "Joyless". "Humorless". This was my first clue that there might be a teensy bit of bias going on. I don't want to drag this into a Marvel vs. DC morass, because then we'd be here all day, but this idea that it's only the Marvel tone that works for superhero movies is a throwback to the idea that comic books are for kids. That anything to do with comic books have to have a rainbow-sized colour palette and a RDJ-alike making quips a mile a minute. I don't mind Marvel doing Marvel stuff, in fact, I welcome it, but a lot of critics seem to have decided that a dark, grim tone in itself is a negative.

"So if critics hate dark, how come they loved the Nolan movies huh?" Yeah, this is the most common defense being pushed around. Here's the thing - the Nolan movies were brilliant. BvS is decidedly NOT a brilliant movie. It's good, but not great. However, calling a good movie, or even a mediocre movie bad BECAUSE of its tone makes no sense. Worse, it suggests that those who prefer a particular tone are somehow, by virtue of their aesthetic choice, less evolved in their taste. I happen to prefer this tone, as do many others I know. Some of Marvel's movies bore me simply because of their very different tone. Doesn't make them worse movies though.

Oh, and there are laughs to be had here. Almost everything Perry White or Alfred says elicits a chuckle or two. Because they aren't coming at you like machine-gun fire, they land with more impact.

Plot and Storytelling:
The plot has holes. So. Many. Holes. But there are also hints and suggestions regarding plot points, and the viewer is expected to connect the dots, which is something that some critics seem to have a problem with. This is a movie where not everything is spelled out, and requires careful watching for it to make sense. Is that a good thing? Should a summer blockbuster always be a switch-your-brain-off kind of thing? I don't know, and I am not suggesting it shouldn't. It's true that Snyder is not a skilled enough director to juggle the multiple plot points and heavy themes efficiently. But the fact that the movie even tried to do it, even though it failed, makes it more interesting to me.

However, one thing I never had a problem with, and I don't really understand why so many reviewers did, was the storytelling. It's certainly choppy, but I personally enjoyed that. The movie is told through multiple perspectives and some events take place concurrently. There are multiple plot points, but they are not hard to follow, and when they come together, it's satisfying to see the threads meet. Again, there seems to be a "if it's a comic book movie it has to be simple and linear" attitude which is difficult to agree with.

But yeah, the blatant fanservice videos of the other heroes should definitely have been placed at the end, instead of right before the big fight.

Action and Visuals:
Some things are just automatically cool. Watching the DC Trinity work together on the big screen is one of those things. The action is epic, and the ground level shots where Bruce is watching Superman and Zod duke it out really provide a sense of scale of the destruction caused. However, the film takes time to get going, and the action ramps up only in the last hour or so. Batman gets a couple of solo fight scenes that are bone-crunchingly brutal, and the marquee main event is just as I envisioned a Batman vs Superman fight to go down. It even has a decent laugh! Wonder Woman shows up in the coolest manner imaginable. Electric cello blaring, she looks every inch a gladiator forged in battle. Where Superman, in spite of all his power, questions and wavers, she leaps at the enemy - sword, shield and above all, lasso in hand. For all Snyder did wrong, Wonder Woman has been done oh-so-right.

Visually, the film is typical Snyder - beautiful shots that look like comic book panels, with a sense of grandeur in the visuals. The 3D doesn't really help, making the dark visuals even murkier. Once again, 3D mucks up an otherwise beautiful movie.

Which brings us to two major criticisms of the "action" aspects of the movie. Let's deal with them one by one

1) "Batman kills. He mows down henchmen. This violates his no-kill code" - Batman has always killed in the movies. In the Burton movies, he definitely killed henchmen, while in the Nolan movies, he kills two face and flips a truck over. He had NO WAY of knowing that would not kill everyone inside the truck. Canon batman does not kill, but this is not canon. Each director has his own version of the character, aspects of which are canon, and aspects that are not. I have never felt that "no killing" has to be an integral part of every Batman. If you do, that's certainly an opinion, but not one casual fans care much about.

2) "They cause citywide destruction again, after making that such a big deal in the MoS movie" - The first thing Superman does is fly Doomsday into outer space. The only reason the battle comes back to earth is because of the knee-jerk reaction of the powers that be. If anything, this movie proves that Superman has evolved and understands his responsibilities better than those passing judgement on him.

The Final Word

Batman vs Superman does a lot of things right. Problem is, some  things it does will appeal to casual moviegoers and piss off hardcore fans, and some will appeal to hardcore fans and piss off casual moviegoers. On top of that, Zack Snyder's limitations as a filmmaker means the film has glaring weaknesses, while his fanboy love for comic book means it also has a lot of heart and is emotionally powerful. That's why this is such an incredibly divisive movie, and that is why it cannot make anyone completely happy. Given a chance, however, it is a fantastic entertainer, and gets me excited for another comic book universe on the big screen.

Movie Review: Detective Byomkesh Bakshy

I'm not much of a regionalist, but Detective Byomkesh Bakshy depressed the Bengali in me. It reminded me that the best live-action version of the quintessential Bengali detective till date was in Hindi. Rajat Kapoor played the dhuti clad Byomkesh with suavity and charm so many years ago, and he remains THE onscreen Byomkesh for a lot of people even today. I count myself among those people. No, Sushant Singh Rajput has not usurped that position, but after Dibakar Banerjee's Detective Byomkesh Bakshy, it makes me more than a little sad that the TWO best live-action versions of the quintessential Bengali detective has been in Hindi.

Now I will admit, the character is not one I am overly emotional about - not the way I am with the other Bengali sleuth. I have never much cared for the 'sanctity' of Byomkesh, instead demanding filmmakers offer me a well-acted, tightly scripted, engaging story that isn't an insult to my intelligence, or to my senses. I have been disappointed every time. Whether it's the shoddy Anjan Dutta version featuring a Byomkesh who mispronounces his 'ra' every time, or the molasses-slow Rituparno movie, or the current TV show whose only purpose seems to be to make every other version look halfway competent in comparison - Byomkesh in Bengali has fallen flat every time. Satyajit Ray's "Chiriakhana" is probably the best one in this sorry lot, and THAT had Uttam Kumar pretending to be Japanese.

*sigh*

Which brings us back to Detective Byomkesh Bakshy. Post Satyajit Ray, Dibakar Banerjee is probably the most talented director to get his hands on the license, and instead of adapting one of the existing stories, he has crafted his own. It has elements from three Byomkesh stories - Satyanweshi, Pother Kanta and Arthamanartham, but is wholly original in plot, with much higher stakes and intrigue that involves heavy noir elements - including a femme fatale and an unhinged, psychotic villain. Banerjee's Kolkata is straight out of Bengali nostalgia - vibrant, colourful, vivid, but with dark alleyways and looming shadows just around the corner. There's no sign of the famine of 1943, but the time and place are rooted in imagination, more than reality, so unless you are incredibly anal about history, that doesn't intrude.

Byomkesh himself is a little bit like the Kolkata of the time - brash and angry. Playing carrom in college, he tells Ajit, who has come to ask for help in finding his missing father "He's probably run off with a woman". Ajit slaps his lights out and signals that this won't be the Byomkesh - Ajit relationship we are used to. After he recovers, Byomkesh changes his mind and almost thrusts himself into the investigation - one that follows a serpentine path to murder, conspiracy, and war.

Speaking of Ajit, Anand Tiwari is a joy. He has a far more central role to play here than he does in most Byomkesh stories - it's from him that the mystery begins, after all, and he handles Ajit's strength and vulnerability with elan. He is an incredible foil to the more energetic and excitable Byomkesh, and you can believe the friendship that grows between these two men, both directionless, in their own way. If a sequel to this movie gets made, I can't wait to watch the chemistry between the two develop. Which is crucial, because there's so little chemistry between Byomkesh and Satyabati. Rookie Divya Menon plays Satyavati with a quiet confidence and is suitably deglammed, but enough time isn't given to let the relationship between Byomkesh and Satyabati build and the romance feels forced.

As for Byomkesh himself, Sushant Singh Rajput is fine, and a little more than fine in parts. However, whether it's due to his fault or the fault of the script, the Byomkesh character remains a little underwhelming. Vulnerability is all well and good, but Byomkesh is supposed to be smarter than the average bear, so to speak, and shouldn't be missing stuff the audience can see from a mile off. On occasion, he seems to lose the confidence he displays otherwise, making one wonder exactly how smart and in control he really is. But those occasions are few, and can be chalked up to his youth, something the more mature Byomkesh would grow out of.

Truth is, Rajput seems a tad weak only because the film is peppered with such phenomenal performances, and none more than the big bad. While the story goes straight up into Sin City territory in the last 15 minutes or so (and it's not like the noir graphic novel influences aren't obvious - hell, the poster is a comic book panel), what saves it is the brilliance of the actor playing the villain, which I am not spoiling here. Suffice to say what could have been ridiculously over the top is menacing, chilling and scary due to the sheer power of the performance.

So is Byomkesh Bakshy a good time? On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it a "Hell Yeah". If you like your noir gory and over the top, this is a great way to spend a couple of hours. If, however, you are walking in with preconceived notions of a lot of armchair detecting (Which Byomkesh rarely did BTW), and is the kind of person who complains about directors "changing the story" (except when Satyajit Ray does it for Goopy Gayen Bagha Bayen), stay far away. If the alt rock soundtrack in the trailer didnt tip you off (yes it's in the movie, and yes, it fits the ambiance to a tee), here's your warning. This isn't the Bakshy you are used to, and that's a great thing. Because THAT Bakshy works best between the covers of a book, and this movie is smart enough not to even try to go up against it.

PS: There's a reason why I didn't mention Swastika Mukherjee, or her character. It's because I have discovered that the secret to a happy healthy existence is a complete lack of Swastika Mukherjee in one's life. I have scrubbed her existence in the movie from my memory, and would advise you to do the same. The film is better for it.

3 Reasons Why You Definitely Should (AND Shouldn't) Watch the Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises has already made more than $500 million in worldwide gross in the first week, yet it's being seen as a tad disappointing, perhaps because it ONLY made $500 million in worldwide gross in the first week. That should give you an idea about the kind of expectations people had of this movie. Meanwhile, general public reaction seems range from "It's pretty awesome!" to....actually to be honest I don't really know because If you don't use the words 'awesome' or it's variants when describing TDKR, you sir, are not a person I would like to know. However, even I can see that the movie might not be everybody's thing, so if you haven't seen it yet and are wondering whether it is worth a cut of your multiplex budget , here are 3 reasons why you should definitely watch it, OR, equally definitely, give it a miss.

It's grim with a capital G. Also, a capital R, a capital I and a capital M. Also, all the letters are in bold. And underlined.


Why you shouldn't watch it: I'm pretty sure Christopher Nolan was molested by a man dressed as Batman in his impressionable youth. It's the only reasonable explanation for the sadistic mental and physical torture he puts his protagonist through. A far more accurate title of the movie would be 'The Dark Knight Falls Into A Deep Dark Pit Of  Despair Where He Is Dragged Over The Hot Coals Of Hellish Agony And Unimaginable Pain From Which There Seems To Be No Escape...And Then Rises'. Granted, it makes the 'Rises' bit pretty impressive, but if your idea of a good time is 'The Avengers', stay the fuck away.

Why you should: On the other hand, remember when they tried to make Batman more lighthearted and breezy? We got Bat-nipples and Bat-built-in-skates and Bat-credit-cards and Bat-banter-with-Robin-about -who-gets-the-girl. So perhaps that's not the best way to go with a batman movie. Darkness and despair are integral to the Batman character, and trying to avoid them never works out well.

It's very much Christopher Nolan's Batman


Why You Shouldn't Watch It: Do you like your superheroes to be, you know, super? Do you wan't your villains larger than life? Do you love to see them revel in their power? Well, in the word's of Clint Eastwood in the worst Dirty Harry movie yet, you're shit outta luck. Christopher Nolan doesn't like his superheroes to leap, or even jetpack over tall buildings in a single bound, so Batman doesn't hit any harder or faster than a normal, albeit very skilled and powerful fighter. Nor does it matter that in the comics Bane is a hulking brute who can grow to the size of a largish SUV thanks to a magical toxin called Venom. In Nolanverse, he's the size of a man. A man who can crush skulls with his armpits, yes, but still, basically, a man. Everything's grounded, everything's real and nothing's larger than life.

Why You Should: You know what that also means? Everything's believable. Batman, with all his toys and training, is a man whose body is giving away. No comic book logic can save him here. Things have weight, especially the meaty hands of Bane as they pound poor Bruce Wayne into submission. We all know that in a superhero movie the good buy wins, the bad guy loses and everyone goes home happy. The fact that even this knowledge can't keep you off the edge of your seat is a testament to Nolan's ability as a filmmaker.

It's the sequel to possibly the greatest comic book movie of all time.


Why You Shouldn't Watch It: First thing's first. If you don't believe that The Dark Knight is among the greatest comic book movies of all time, you're wrong. There's no debate, no "it's my personal opinion", no "it doesn't work for me". I could throw statistics and data at you all day long about its 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, about ecstatic reviews from the best critics in the business, but the simple fact is, none of that matters. Your taste in superhero movies is judged by how much you love TDK, not the other way around. And therein lies the problem.

It's tough to follow the best. Unless you are some sort of superhuman non-expector, you are going to walk in with expectations, however, slight, of Nolan outdoing himself. And you will be wrong. There is no outdoing The Dark Knight. It's a good movie, great in parts, but it does not have a Heath Ledger as the joker. The story is clunky at times, and forced in others. And it goes to far with the whole "though shalt smile less than you did at your grandma's funeral" theme.

Why You Should: Because it's not just a sequel to the greatest comic book movie of all time, it's also the end of the saga. Nolan's Batman is not a collection of 3 stand-alone movies like the Spider-Man trilogy. The movies are tied together and without TDKR, TDK is incomplete. It does not take the tale of Bruce Wayne to its natural conclusion, and it does not provide the wonderful closure that this movie does. If you are emotionally invested in Batman, Bruce Wayne, or Nolan's Gotham at all, TDKR is a movie that you need to watch.

Critically speaking....

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends... Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."

Anton Ego(giving voice to Brad Bird), Ratatouille

I have been a fan of Roger Ebert ever since I stumbled into his website a couple of years ago. People generally begin with a love for movies and then find critics who can guide them to the movies they will like, but for me it was the other way around. Ebert is not limited to being a critic, his reviews show a deep love for movies that is infectious. His reviews are opinion pieces to be sure ( according to Ebert himself, a critic's job is just to give his impression of the movie) but the opinions of a man who is both intellectually sound and emotional about the subject at hand, not to mention a wonderful communicator, is perhaps the best guide possible.

Recently Ebert's wrote an article on his blog (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html) talking about the role of critics. He calls the above words by Anton Ego "Some of the wisest.." Of course, when the movie came out, many thought the monologue was Brad Bird's proverbial rude gesture to critics in general. After all, who hates a critic more than a filmmaker. To make something, to spend time and money on it, to emotionally invest in it and see it ripped to shreds by some all-knowing snit can be a painful experience. But here's the kicker. Brad Bird has never experienced that, at least in his professional career. A two time oscar winner, all of his movies have been critically applauded by the best of them. A quick visit to rottentomatoes reveals the ratings 95% for Ratatouille, 97% for The Incredibles and 97% for The Iron Giant. So why would this man take five minutes of his movie to slap the wrists of those very people who have been nothing but effusively complimentry of him. My belief is that, he doesn't. Going back to sometime before the climactic cook-out, there is a little eschange between Linguini, the "hero" and Ego, a food critic who is known for his scathing reviews

Linguini: "And you're thin for someone who likes food."
Ego: "I don't like food, I love it... if I don't love it I don't swallow. I will return tomorrow night with high expectations...pray you don't disappoint me."

A critic, any true critic is one whose love for his subject is overwhelming. He abhors mediocrity. Yes I know the "average piece of junk.." statement in Ego's monologue, but chalk it up to being overwhelmed by the best meal he's had, shall we ? Going back the first responsibility of a critic is not to praise, or savage, or even give out little star ratings. His job is to fall in love with art. Anton is a fine critic, as is Ebert. Now if only there was someone who could give us a review of the best critics there are. In the age of the internet, finding good critics has perhaps become harder that finding good movies.