1950s Hammer Horror Part One

THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN
(1957)
Dir - Val Guest
Overall: MEH

Director Val Guest, (hot off the success of the first two Quartermass films), does another play adaptation with Nigel Kneale, this time on The Creature, re-titled in movie form to the more exciting The Abominable Snowman.  This was Peter Cushing's second work with Hammer as it was released just after The Curse of Frankenstein, though it did far less business box office wise.  It is also far less good.  Kneale's script is ambitious enough; to showcase the Yeti as intelligent, benevolent creatures while homo-sapiens natural curiosity seals their doom.  The admirable concept is not enough as it takes near fifty minutes before any Yeti of any kind make an appearance, for one thing.  Literally the most exciting occurance before that is Peter Cushing slipping on a mountain ledge.  Also, the "don't interfere with nature" theme is rather heavy and elementary, as are the characters.  Cushing is the good guy who sees logic and the error of his ways exactly when he should, the two hunters are brutes, the one guy who is crazy about the Yeti of course goes crazy, Mrs. Cushing just has a feeling everything is going to go horrible because a woman's intuition, the Lama is all cryptic and calm, the local trackers are all jumpy and superstitions, etc.  With so many lazy tropes left in place, the less is more approach seems particularly ill-fitting for the material.

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES
(1959)
Dir - Terence Fisher
Overall: GOOD

One of if not the very highest regarded of all Sherlock Holmes films, The Hound of the Baskervilles is oddly perhaps the sole one produced by Hammer.  Both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee would later be involved in other Sir Arthur Conan Doyle adaptations elsewhere, (as would director Terence Fisher), but for whatever reason, Hammer never franchised this property as they had their famous monsters.  In any event, it is notable for its more Gothic horror style which Holmes movies would rarely if at all ever adhere to. Naturally, the unbeatable trio Cushing, Lee, and Fisher has much to do with such leanings, but the story itself is rather appropriate for such a presentation.  Holmes of course is three steps ahead of everyone, several characters of course are alluded to being suspects, there is of course no real supernatural tomfoolery afoot, and also of course, everything is wrapped up in a nice little package at the end.  Some of the twists are a little silly, but the semi-spooky atmosphere, the arrogant charm of Cushing's Holmes, and dashes of blood make it quite a worthy endeavor.

THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH
(1959)
Dir - Terence Fisher
Overall: GOOD

Terence Fisher was on a roll in the late fifties.  This year alone saw The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Mummy under his helm in addition to the comparatively lesser known The Man Who Could Cheat Death.  A re-make of sorts of 1945's The Man in Half Moon Street, this one has character actor Anton Diffring in the title role as a last minute fill-in for Peter Cushing.  The latter casting would have obviously been preferable since Christopher Lee is also present and the pair of them two could scarcely do wrong on screen together.  Diffring does quite excellent work of his own here though.  Hazel Court's topless scene was actually shown in the European cut of the film whereas it was removed elsewhere.  This can be seen as a negative for those adamant on seeing scream queen nudity, but elsewhere, there is very little to complain about.  The plot is rather predictable as we know Dr. Bonnet is doomed by the finale from his first gruesome transformation scene and Lee's Dr. Gerard and Inspector LeGris, (genre regular Francis de Wolff), put the mysterious pieces together rather easily, yet this is still a swell, "scientist playing god" type outing with a wicked enough villain whose misfortune is enjoyable to endure.

1960s and 70s Jekyll & Hyde Adaptations

THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE

(1960)
Dir - Terence Fisher
Overall: GOOD

The first but not last adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's seminal novel for Hammer Film Productions was The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Ideal director Terence Fisher was once again on board, kicking up the sexuality and shock value for the times to fit into the bloody, colorful new era.  Having Christopher Lee cast against type as the gambling scoundrel Paul Allen instead of in the lead is a surprising yet rewarding choice as Lee can play such deplorable characters quite effortlessly.  Both him and Jekyll's unfaithful wife Kitty, (Dawn Addams), are just as shady and flawed as Hyde, which makes everyone less cut-and-dry good or evil, in fitting with the material.  Speaking of Hyde, he is the handsome and dashing one here, Jekyll looking almost ridiculous with a patched on beard and eyebrows, clearly obsessed to the point of being pathetic from the very first scene we meet him in.  Paul Massie's performance goes too far much of the time as it seems amazing that he does not have a heart attack from stress alone the first time he shoots himself up.  It is also a bit silly that no one recognizes him as he is clearly just a shaved Jekyll, as well as the elephant in the room that the two are never seen together but go on and on about being the closest of friends.  Melodramatic plot holes aside, it is still a classy, well-executed production.

DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE
(1971)
Dir - Roy Ward Baker
Overall: GOOD

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde was Hammer's third and last film adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, coming after nearly two-dozen movie versions since the silent days proceeding it.  Fitting then that producer/writer Brian Clemens concocted it on the gimmick to have the title characters switch genders.  This in itself is a nice enough variation and some other liberties are taken with the source material to keep it a smidge unpredictable from every other version.  Per example, both the real life Jack the Ripper and Burke and Hare cases seamlessly get woven into the proceedings to the point where Ralph Bates is credited as both Jekyll and the Ripper.  Bond girl Martine Beswick is cold, quiet, evil, and occasionally naked and steals her comparatively few scenes while Bates' Jekyll is more subdued than others before him, (though of course he trashes his lab at the end and looks a bit tense when transforming, as is required).  Jekyll's justification for killing helpless girls is a a bit thin and he does not seem near troubled enough by it to sell us on feeling he is the victim in all this.  Yet there is some clever humor here and there, like when Jekyll's colleague Prof Robertson proclaims "It's all very queer indeed", to which the next scene jumps to Jekyll opening up dresses that his alter-ego ordered without his knowledge, per example.

I, MONSTER
(1971)
Dir - Stephen Weeks
Overall: MEH

There is one really nice element to Amicus Studios' Jekyll and Hyde reworking I, Monster, released the same year as Hammer's own redo Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.  That is to see Christopher Lee at last in the title role, one that was given to Paul Massie in Hammer's own adaptation eleven years prior.  The characters names are changed for this round, which seems pointless since we all know what story we are watching anyway.  Lee's Dr. Marlow/Mr. Blake is a beautiful thing to watch though, where he stays rather stiff as the doctor, (no doubt intentionally), and his appearance and actions as the mister become increasingly nasty.  As the plot dictates, the more evil the deed and the more frequently they occur, the more ugly he becomes.  Blake starts off like a big, dumb, grinning child as he harmlessly plays with his lab equipment on first dosage, only by the end to be completely unrecognizable as the type of heavily made-up and monstrous Hyde we have all come to expect.  Sadly, elsewhere things are rather dull.  Peter Cushing barely has anything to do, there is the usual boring "duality of man" babble, there is no sex or even a love interest, and really, the story has been told so many times that besides Lee getting a stab at it, there is really little else to distinguish it.

2000s Asian Horror Part Three

BLIND BEAST VS. DWARF

(2001)

Dir - Teruo Ishii

Overall: MEH

 

Closing out his decades-long career, filmmaker Teruo Ishii's Blind Beast vs. Dwarf, (Mōjū tai Issunbōshi, Blind Beast vs. Killer Dwarf), is a shot-on-digital-video reworking of Yasuzo Masumura's 1969 movie Blind Beast, both being adaptations of Rampo Edogawa's novel Moju.  As has been the case with a number of exploitation directors, (and even David Lynch on Inland Empire), they have switched to the SOV framework for later efforts, likely due to budgetary reasons here as well as the niche market that such a movie would fall into.  A handful of other Japanese filmmakers appear on screen, the most prominent being Shinya Tsukamoto in the second-billed role of a police inspector who is trailing the exploits of the two title maniacs.  Even though it regrettably looks cheap and suffers from such a lack of production values, Ishii's eye for wacked-out visuals is still on point.  There are numerous severed limbs, a weird room full of body part statues and a pair of lips to crawl through, a bunch of people are unwittingly fed human flesh only to understandably puke it up, plus Hisayoshi Hirayama's Blind Beast makes out with a woman's head after cutting it off.  The story is convoluted and boring though, with the weirdo bits spread out too leisurely to make a memorable impact.

THE HOST

(2006)

Dir - Bong Joon-ho

Overall: GOOD

The often ridiculous and just as often amusing The Host mostly does a bang-up job as an actually good giant monster movie.  Our protagonists in the Park family are dysfunctionally humorous, though at times it is hard to tell just how much we are supposed to be laughing at them.  For instance, is it absurd to grieve to THAT extent or were we only supposed to laugh when they all fell down and started flaying about all silly like?  There are a number of dark surprises that are always appreciated, though it did feel like the movie overstayed its welcome just a tad with a few too many improbable moments stretching the running time to where it felt unnecessarily tiresome.  The sub-par look of the monster gets an obvious pass as we are clearly not dealing with Hollywood level budgets here.  That said, the movie garnished a considerable sum for its production based on the success of Joon-ho's previous Memories of Murder and this would in turn go on to gross record-breaking figures in South Korea.  As it should.

 

THE MACHINE GIRL
(2008)
Dir - Noboru Iguchi
Overall: GOOD

Writer/director Noboru Iguchi's The Machine Girl, (Kataude Mashin Gāru), stays in its ultra-violent lane as far as cartoonish revenge movies go.  Squaring off against a bratty ninja yakuza clan that killed her brother, Minase Yashiro's title character possesses inexplicable superhuman agility and ass-whooping skills even if she is a self-proclaimed "average" high school girl at the tale's infancy.  Plausibility is hardly a concern though, with physics-defying set pieces flying at you from left and right, as well as a wacky tone that blends preposterous overacting with so many people wailing over brutally murdered family members set to melancholic music.  The main selling point of course is to watch Yashiro flip around in a schoolgirl outfit with a machine gun arm, effortlessly slicing and dicing up her opponents as she becomes just as sadistically-driven as the bad guys.  She is assisted/trained by Asami Miyajima, (eventually equipped with her own weaponized appendage in a chainsaw leg), and the two of them form a feminist anti-hero team that helps us root for all of the reckless violence, disregard for human life, and justified comeuppance, all of which is enhanced by splattery practical effects and some truly embarrassing CGI ones.

2000s American Horror Part Two

THE MANSON FAMILY
(2003)
Dir - Jim Van Bebber
Overall: MEH

From a "making the viewer severely uncomfortable" standpoint, Jim Van Bebber's The Manson Family is probably the ultimate film out of many with such a source material.  The infamous Manson murders and goings on at the Spahn Ranch have been documented in various media countless times, but Van Bebber's very Natural Born Killers-esque take on it, (that often times seems like actual footage, having artificially aged the overall look), and completely unflinching, way over the top, ubber-violent portrayal is commendable for pulling no punches.  It is incredibly difficult to make a movie that is so disheartening to watch also be worth the viewing experience and in this regard, the film is indeed too much.  It is not so much the gruesomeness of it which many an avid gore and/or horror buff can be plenty desensitized to nowadays, but the jittery, rapid-fire, avant-garde presentation mixed with unrelenting Manson gospel babbling is possibly the most difficult thing about the movie to bare.  To scale any of that back to be more user friendly though would be missing the point to really put us in a birds eye seat of such wickedness.  So this is definitely not something you would want to watch twice, (or once), but it does appear to be the be-all end-all Charles Manson movie for better or worse.

 

BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON

(2006)

Dir - Scott Glosserman

Overall: MEH

Scott Glosserman's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon comes alarmingly close to paying off.  The premise of a film crew making a documentary on an aspiring slasher killer gets believably stretched to a breaking point where unfortunately, it does indeed break.  As smart and carefully as Glosserman and his solid cast plays everything by delving very deep into their details, it is just too much to stop you really getting invested as is necessary.  The parts that seem genuine and intense are well executed on their own, as are the moments that are played straight yet at the same time quite humorously  When these two things are intermingled though, it does not gel since you never stop getting taken out of the movie by how impossible the scenario is.  Going the serious thriller route, the premise would have to be completely reworked.  On the other hand, if going full ridiculous comedy, it would have to go a whole lot further.  Still though, this is in many ways is still likeable for what it attempts in small sections here and there.  Out of all the self-aware slasher parodies that have come in the wake of Scream, there are far worse than this; a movie that is still technically a failure, but a charming one at that.

TRICK 'R TREAT
(2007)
Dir - Michael Dougherty
Overall: MEH

Trick 'R Treat is the full-length debut from writer/director Michael Dougherty, Bryan Singer's right-hand man who previously co-wrote Superman Returns and X2.  It is also a silly, dumb, over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek popcorn, quasi-throwback that is made to be celebratory of all things festive and horrory.  There are cliches in nearly every scene, but the rug is pulled out from under them often enough to get a chuckle if one is in the right state of mind.  In Dougherty's fictional Ohio town, the streets and shops are nearly elbow-to-elbow filled with people treating Halloween like it is Mardi Gras on acid.  There is a parade, news crews covering it, everyone is packed into stores buying their catalog-ready costume the night of, every jack o lantern in the entire country makes an appearance, etc.  Which is all fine.  A harmless little genre-fests like this can be appreciated and/or left well enough alone depending on the viewer.  There is nudity, tons of gore, tons of fog, tons of orange, a mascot, and a bunch of obnoxious kids get brutally murdered so it probably deserves to be forgiven.

2013 Horror Part Three

BLUE RUIN

Dir - Jeremy Saulnier
Overall: GOOD

Jeremy Saulnier's second film Blue Ruin is a mostly crowdfunded noir effort with childhood friend Macon Blair in the all-consuming lead.  You cannot discuss the movie without discussing Blair who is rarely ever off-screen, delivering a relatable and occasionally amusing performance amongst a generous amount of downtrodden chaos.  The film has obvious odes to some of the Cohen brothers schtick, (ordinary, everyday guy caught up in some not-at-all-ordinary turmoil), but the comedy angle is quite subdued.  There is plenty of brutality though, with ever-mounting tension due in part to how sloppy things continue to pan-out.  Saulnier wrote, directed, and shot this film and it looks dirty and grounded, but not in a pandering to the gritty-trend way.  The approach is quite fitting for the material, material that is plenty horrific and nasty without venturing into conventional genre terrain.

WILLOW CREEK

Dir - Bobcat Goldthwait

Overall: MEH

Polarizing stand-up turned filmmaker Bobcat Goldthwait's first venture into horror is the thoroughly lackluster Willow Creek.  There is a careful line to be walked when creating a slow-boil type atmosphere and in this regard, Goldthwait takes WAY too long to get there.  About three/fourths of the movie's running time is spent with a couple sight-seeing, interviewing locals, awkwardly filming their own amateur documentary, and getting in adorable couple arguments.  All of this is fine to a point, but even at a mere seventy-nine minutes in length, the disappointing pay-off makes it appear likely that there simply was not much of a compelling idea here to work with in the first place.  So why does the last act not work once we finally get there?  Well, that is because it is an almost carbon copy of The Blair Witch Project.  Just with Big Foot.  So if you have seen the most famous found footage horror movie of all time, then you have also seen this far more boring and less successful version.  All that said, there is a pretty good, twenty-minute single-shot take that makes this not a complete trainwreck.  If only this was a short film then.

UNDER THE SKIN
Dir - Jonathan Glazer
Overall:  MEH

There is a difference between bizarre and astronomically confusing.  Jonathan Glazer's adaptation of Michael Faber's Under the Skin assuredly falls into the latter category.  While it is virtually impossible to make heads or tails of anything going on in the first half, any assumptions that it would all fall into place at some point later on becomes frustratingly realized.  This is unfortunate since Glazer's steadfast stubbornness not to spoon-feed his audience could wield fascinating results with such compelling production values at play.  Visually, the film is quite excellent and not just because of Scarlet Johansson's much talked about nudity.  The experimental soundtrack by English singer/songwriter Micachu is perfectly unearthly, yet this still cannot completely forgive the, well, unforgiving narrative.  Along with the constant tole this film takes on the brain, it is further bogged down by being ultimately pretty dull and boring, waving its arms in pretentiousness without finding anywhere substantial to really go.

2015 Horror Part Two

THE WITCH
Dir - Robert Eggers
Overall: GREAT

Despite many critics going ga-ga for any new horror outing that does not pummel you with boo scares or is simply not depressing torture porn, rarely do they accomplish that with The Witch does.  The debut from writer/director Robert Eggers is a wonderful departure from both tired and lazy horror tropes yes, but it is also a considerable achievement over virtually anything else being done within the genre.  There are many moments in this film that could have been easily ruined by generic, pandering stylistic choices. Instead, the atonal soundtrack was done with era-appropriate instruments, the dialog is archaic and challenging, the lone jump scare comes with no predictable warning and ergo actually works, and the atmosphere is relentlessly ominous.  These elements only scratch the surface though.  As an exploration of Puritanical Christian paranoia and ignorance fueled by desperation which in turn takes over a family and essentially shows how an actual witch can be made, there are layers to the narrative that can be debated intellectually for decades to come.  Thoroughly researched and loaded with details, it all benefits the film not only as a compelling, psychological essay, but as a deeply eerie example of what the horror genre can truly pull-off.

THE HALLOW
Dir - Corin Hardy
Overall: MEH

The "bad guys" in English filmmaker Corin Hardy's debut The Hallow are a nice departure, skewing would-be whimsical fairytale concepts into a more gritty, contemporary setting.  It is in the execution where Hardy takes the very easy route of piling on the cliches with a "here's a creepy book that explains everything that's going on" and some cold, cryptically warning neighbors both providing some much worn-out tropes, per example.  The CGI is used somewhat sparringly though due to the indie budget, it also comes off pretty cartoony.  Based on Irish folklore with a dash of some heavy-handed environmentalism thrown in, there is a family in peril, but the script does not do that well of a job helping the viewer either learn or care much for them.  It is nice that the film gets to the "good stuff" quicker than most and forgoes a slowboil approach that leads nowhere interesting, yet at the same time, it is all ultimately bogged down by so many horror things that have been seen before.  This makes the relatively action packed second half so much more dull than it otherwise would be.  Sometimes a different movie monster than we are used to is simply not enough.  Lesson learned here.

THE NIGHTMARE
Dir - Rodney Ascher
Overall: MEH

Rodney Ascher's Room 237 follow-up is a comparatively superior documentary, this is true.  It is also not without its flaws, be they very different ones than the "let's listen to one-hundred plus minutes of nutbars with the most ever time on their hands rattle on about what The Shining absolutely isn't about".  For The Nightmare, we are presented with eight cases of real people who suffer extreme cases of sleep paralysis, a terrifying sleeping disorder made all the more so by the fact that most of them seem to have it on a nightly basis.  The good part is that Ascher is equipped with a hefty enough budget to stage re-enactments that for the most part are effectively unnerving.  They are certainly several cuts above what one would see on A&E or the History Channel in other words.  The bad part is that that is all the movie is; interviews with the afflicted people and then a visual aid to basically make the whole thing more horror movie than straight documentary.  This intentional approach ultimately ends up a frustrating experience as we are given no other points of view let alone any scientific explanations for the phenomena.  There are no interviews with doctors or anything to help us learn much, making it all feel like rather a half complete work.  Instead, all that the film can really offer us is "well damn that's pretty fucked up" and "sucks to be them" reactions.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE
(2016)
Dir - Zack Synder
Overall: WOOF

Oh dear me word.  This is simply a sad, textbook case of a massively budgeted and promoted superhero movie that was doomed to fail and ended up being shockingly worse, (not exactly WHAT, but WORSE), than we all expected.  The signs were multiple.  It was nearly three years in the making, the release date kept being changed, the first trailer arrived a year early, it was put out before the usual "summer blockbuster" season, it followed-up a generally disliked Superman reboot, it re-envisions the already iconic and incredibly successful Christopher Nolan Batverse trilogy from only four years earlier, more characters kept being added, actors signed on to multiple picture deals to rush-kick-off a Justice League franchise because Marvel and The Avengers, Jesse Eisenberg, the list goes way on and on.

There is a lot to go over with this debacle, too much in fact.  Yet everything that was expected are the obvious criticisms, being that it was too over-stuffed with characters, literally and thematically too dark and humorless, and it did virtually everything wrong with developing a multi-superhero universe that Marvel did and continues to do right with theirs.  We all knew all this would be the case going in.  Still, I like to have faith in comic book movies.  Call it my own nostalgic admiration for such superheroes and villains, (I know I had Superman and Batman regularly duke it out in Super Powers action figure form back in the 80s when I was a wee lad), my current liking for almost every comic book movie adaptation being made in the last ten plus years, or my continued nerdiness for actually reading boatloads of graphic novels.  I want these movies to succeed, as do most of us I reckon.  That said, this certainly does not make Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice an easy pill to get down.

I also like Zack Snyder.  I still do not understand The Watchmen hate as I thoroughly loved Synder's very faithful adaptation and I can laugh at his compulsive, slow-motion nervous twitch instead of getting irritated by it.  I also actually liked Man of Steel.  I was on board with a realistic look at what a Superman would be like in real life and modern times.  How his arrival would change everything, effecting and ushering in the future age of superheroes.  That and the whole God vs Man angle, (the key thing attempted in BvS btw).  Good themes there with oodles of potential.  It has been done in the comics and there is no logical reason that it should not have worked here.  Chris Terrio, (Argo), and David S. Goyer (Dark City, The Dark Knight Trilogy), both helmed the script.  Cannot do better than that right?  Yet Batman v Superman's loathsome result can really only be chalked up to good ole studio interference and dollar sign pressure making this a classic "too many cooks in the kitchen" type deal.

AAAANNNDDD this goes here

Marvel, (DC's natural competitors since long before film adaptations of their properties became a thing), is making all the money and getting all the praise for their over-lapping celluloid universe, with uniquely themed, compelling solo films and TV shows tried out first and then characters merging into each others movies.  It works because the fucks are given to make it work.  Despite the megatron success of the Nolan Batman films and the decades of dominance that the earlier Bat franchise and Superman ones had over Marvel's non-existent ones, (Dolph Lundgren's Punisher anyone?), this is 2016 and DC/Warner Brother's are not going to sit back and not have an "everybody in the pool" franchise of their own, not by damn sight.  These movies make money because of all the CGI and guys and gals in costumes in them right?  Yeah that's the ticket.  Quick, give the Flash a dream sequence cameo, (see what I did there?).

Meaning of course that Mr. Synder, Mr. Goyer, and Mr. Terrio all did not have a chance.  Neither did anybody else involved.  Which brings us to Eisenberg.  Much has rightfully been said about the way-the-fuck-off Lex Luthor interpretation and I equally do not blame Mr. Eisenberg.  Hey, everybody went ape-shit for Heath Ledger's Joker and he was an insane, chaotic loving genius, right?  Super, manipulative bad guy must equal wacky, coked-out, mumbling, clearly unhinged Jim Carey's Riddler right?  "So just do that" went the higher-ups who gave Eisenberg his orders, I would bet dollar for donuts was the case.  Also Luthor's motivation, (or more lack-thereof), and grand "huh?" scheme are not Eisenberg's fault.  They are the result of incredibly poor, unfocused writing, all brought on by a "clowns are menacing = Joker" misguided viewpoint from the higher-ups.  Besides, we all know that Lex hates Superman right?  Fuck it then, everyone in the audience will fill in the rest and be fine with it.

Never said I was the first, (or last), to notice.

So it goes on like this.  Henry Cavill's Superman has maybe twenty-odd words of dialog and maybe the same number of actual screen time minutes when he is not in slow motion or smashing opponents through buildings at speeding bullet speed.  His and Lois Lane's love story arc is blink-and-you'll-miss-it there and Cavill has not a prayer of coming off as anything but a piece of cardboard in the process.  A chiselled, Hollywood sculpted, perfect-hair and complexion at all times piece of cardboard, but cardboard none-the-less.  Same goes for Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, though to be fair she is a very minor player for this round and her up and coming solo film will do the arc developing thing that could not fit here.  Well, one would assume at least, right?

Which brings everything back to "DC is fucking this up" homebase.  We need a solo Wonder Woman movie first.  We need to establish Ben Affleck's older, veteran Batman first.  Keep ignoring Aquaman.  Etc, etc.  Here though, everything is either crammed or just alluded to for future use, doing nothing to compel us.  I gave less than no shits about any one or any thing going on.  No shits at all.  We need an entire focused plot on each major player to get everyone's motivations on track and characters developed, yes.  In addition to that problem, it also has to do with what else makes up a gargantuan amount of screen time here.  Meaning horridly boring, computer generated action sequences.  Each new movie that comes out, (christ even Guillermo Del Toro's tragic Crimson Peak), makes me more and more burnt out and numb to CGI.  These movies all just look too much like...too much.  With BvS, so many bad guys get pummeled, so many things blow up, so much lightning, so much fire, so many explosions, earth shattering destruction, cars flipping everywhere, glass smashing, the ground itself erupting, buildings, explosions, more buildings, more fire, explosions, even more fire, lightning again, and explosions.  Ooo, and before I forget, also some explosions.

It is hard to realize what I care less about, all that shit or all the scenes of people talking to each other super serious like.  I believe there is exactly three jokes in this movie.  Three.  That is three jokes in a hundred and fifty-one minute long movie about grown men who put on tights and punch things.  The eventual director's cut will be oodles longer no doubt and rated R.  Seriously.  It still probably will not have any establishing shots before all those close-ups because fuck, ain't no one got time for that.  Explosions!  For asses sake, I bet Schindler's List has more funny than this.  So yeah, kind of hard to "enjoy" what is going on here.  I appreciate bleakness.  I appreciate real world adaptations of costume comic book goings-ons.  Yet when ALL we are given is cowling, angry, and tense close-ups of characters being all cowling and angry OR everything go cartoon smashy-smashy, I tune out.  Bigger is not better, nor is seriousness more better.  There needs to be a story.  There needs to be motivation across the board.  Things need to gel and make sense.  All the pieces need to fit.  We need time and then we have to keep eating our popcorn, going "That was damn good.  The movie too" once it is all done and over with.

Ben Affleck though is in fact good.  Good under such hopeless circumstances that is, but good.  The idea of a tired, worn-down Bruce Wayne who has been at the game for twenty years and has already gone through numerous arcs is indeed intriguing.  There is set to be an Affleck written/directed/starred solo Batman movie after this and it will probably be really damn good.  Affleck is good when he is on screen.  He is good when he is doing detective stuff, when he is training, when he is conversing with Alfred, (Jeremy Irons, also good), and when he is pretending to eye-hump Diana Prince.  He is good even when there is randomly some broad in his bed, whatever that was about.  Also, his costume looks great.  Both of 'em.  His calculated plan to take down Superman actually has a tad of some motivation behind it and the way he executes it?  Not half shabby.

"I must break you" - Actual quote

Still, there is so much missing.  Like so much.  As viewers, (be it comic book fans or not), we are simply left to assume...lots.  People in the South American jungle who do not know what planet we live on know that Bruce Wayne's parents were shot in front of him and that is why he beats up bad guys.  Yet the film opens with this because it is actually illegal to have any Batman story whatsoever NOT depict his parent's murder.  Trust me, I looked it up.  Yet this is honestly the one backstory element that we did not need at all yet it is the only one we get.  We see Robin's old costume, vandalized by the Joker in a display case in the Batcave.  I mean, at least I know what that was referencing because I have read a lot of Batman comics, but does the casual movie goer know what that means?  We also have the line to Clark Kent about guys dressed as clowns being a pain in his ass, but really, what has Batman been up to?  Why is Wayne Manor abandoned?  Where is the cave's present location?  Where's the rest of Gotham and its other important characters?  Does Perry White honestly think that reporting on Batman who is decades into his career ISN'T a news worthy story?  Really?  Logic would also dictate that Batman had to have been a long established vigilante the whole time Man of Steel was transpiring then right?  Wouldn't he kind of be a real big deal in THAT film too or at least casually brought up?  Seriously though, who the fuck was the dame in Bruce Wayne's bed?

Also, dream sequences.  This is high on the list of missteps.  Why is Bruce Wayne plagued by them you may ask?  So do all of us.  This is not explained, it just is.  This is the story of Batman v Superman's life in a nutshell.  These nightmares would have made far more sense for Superman to be having don't you think?  He had his own movie directly before this.  We have a backstory to his burden.  His coming is the spark that lights all the other super people emerging from their hiding places.  Why are they hiding exactly?  You bet; you are on your own again as to why.  Shouldn't Superman be the one to essentially dawn the Justice League?  Rally everyone together and show the world that super beings are here to help people and do what is right?  Wouldn't that be yet another arc to push Kal-El out of his lonesomeness, now that there are others like him.?  Yet Flash and Parademons do not visit him when he sleeps.  He remains completely oblivious though the end to Luthor's findings on all the other guys with symbols by their respective computer folders.

Not only is this a daft choice but it is a sloppy one.  Batman has had tragic loss in his life.  Too much.  Judging by the Robin costume display, he would be reluctant to work with others again.  Too many people to endanger, too much guilt.  Superman on the other hand is the last of his kind on a planet he is not born on and everybody is always picking on him.  He would want some goddamn Super Friends.  A proper understanding as well as a proper filmatic introduction to all these other characters would have helped us understand what was happening.  It also would have helped the people who made this movie.

Then we have Batman killing people.  Along with Carrot Top/Lex Luthor, this is the thing to piss off the most number of comic book fans.  Why is Batman killing people you may be wondering?  Correct again; who the fuck knows?  If I am sounding like a broken record at this point, that is the point.  This movie is broken.  There are moments, (both in dreams and in not), where this is either the most haphazard depiction of Batman since the beginning of ever in trying to only injure his opponents or in fact he is totally fine with ending peoples lives.  A car with criminals in it is flips over multiple times and then is dumped upside down on another car.  A main baddie is blown up by his own flame thrower.  All of this is Batman's deliberate doing.  Oh, and he uses guns a few times.  Not in a Punisher way but in an occasionally not killing people on purpose and occasionally yes, killing people I guess on purpose way.  It is all mighty hard if not impossible to decipher from the non-existent amount of info we the viewer are presented with.

"Why the hell are they giving me guns?  I'm Batman!" - from a reading of Ben Affleck Talks to His Agent - the Movie.

There are a number of stills you can seek out and brief scenes you can watch in this movie that are visually pleasing enough.  A small handful of things are done comic book-accurate.  Frank Miller fans can certainly appreciate these.  The opening scene that directly addresses everyone's biggest uprising against Man of Steele is pleasant.  Bruce Wayne's point of view against seeing Superman recklessly use the buildings of Metropolis as a wrestling mat is a good way to begin.  Yet these stand-alone moments do not make a good movie.  They do not come close.  Most of the worst comic book film adaptations are such for obvious reasons.  They stink from front to back.  Yet even Batman & Robin got its tone consistent for fucks sake and in the process is a ridiculously enjoyable train-wreck ala Troll 2 or Battlefield Earth if viewed under the right eyes.  Batman v Superman on the other hand fails in a more unfortunate and heartbreaking way.  This movie on premise alone should have been idiot-proof to deliver.  The God vs Man theme is perfect.  Superman is dark now, Batman by nature is and has been in the movies since Tim Burton proved it.  This world should work.  Yet the sum of all the countless missteps and very occasional ok-ness do in fact make this one of the worst superhero movies ever made.

Alas though, there is a silver lining to be found and it is not in the reality that this film's 29% Rotten Tomatoes score is going to mean that DC is going to pull the plug on everything it is doing and get a time-out to behave itself before trying it again.  As we speak, this movie is tearing the box office a new asshole.  Panned, hated, despised, laughed-at; it matters not.  Nor did it ever.  This was as preordained to make all the money as it was to fall on its ass as an actual film.  There will be a lot more of these is what I am saying.

No, the good part comes in a personal experience for me.  I took my six year old daughter to see this.  She is my date for seeing comic book movies in the theater now until she reaches teenage years and I am officially not her cool dad anymore.  This was the third such superhero film she saw on the big screen...and she loved it.  As did my fiance's respective six and nine year olds when they saw it.  In fact at this very moment, I am listening to the lot of them debate parts of the movie, (apparently Amy Adams having red hair meant that she was Poison Ivy and "wasn't a bad guy yet" in the mind of a kindergartner).

As shitty, depressing, and disappointing-isn't-a-strong-enough-word as Batman v Superman actually is, my child's appreciation for it warms my heart.  This is their generation's Tim Burton's Batman or Christopher Reeves' Superman.  This is the movie that they will be adults and hanging out with their friends, drinking beer, getting high, and being nostalgic for as they watch it for the two-hundredth time.  Just as all of us born in the 1980s can hear Danny Elfman's score and immediately a smile will spring forth from our faces.  Batman v Superman makes my kids smile.  Because costumes and explosions and oo look, it's Wonder Woman's lasso!  Such is the way it goes on, for as long as comic book movies are made.  It sucks getting old when the innocence is lost and the cynical-ness hopelessly takes over doesn't it?  But hey, at least I can count Arnold's ice puns in Batman & Robin and the drinking games can continue.  All is never lost folks.  Even here.