FILM REVIEW: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opens with the same devastation that ended 2013’s Man of Steel, as Supes (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) threw down and battled, wreaking destruction upon Metropolis’ skyline. Only this time, it is seen from the vantage point of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), choppered in from neighbouring Gotham City to watch helplessly as his employees are trapped and ultimately killed in the fallout.

It goes to explain away some of his contempt for the Kryptonian but only ever-so slightly. Yet again, we are treated to the now inevitable flashback to Bruce’s parents and their murder, except now they’re played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Lauren Cohan, and it’s 1981. There’s another bat sequence too. Necessary? Not remotely but it serves as a heavy-handed reminder that the two main things still driving Bruce are vengeance and fear. Clark is still working at the Daily Planet, loving/saving Lois (Amy Adams) and generally wondering whether Superman can actually exist in a world that doesn’t really know if it wants him or outside of Lois, he really wants it. He also finds himself judging the Bat’s from of vigilante justice. Eventually both are brought together by scheming sycophant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) at the opening of a library, no less. Also in attendance is a mystery lady – could she be Wonder Woman? Of course she is, we’ve all seen the trailer.

The action flits between Gotham, Metropolis, the Indian Ocean, Africa and Bruce’s subconscious, all within the first hour or so. Sadly, this lack of focus remains as more subplots give way to some convolution and a few bloated set-pieces, in addition to some rather inexplicable moments which do not serve the overarching plot and feel wholly out of place. For example, Lois having a bath, or a sweaty Bruce hitting a large tyre with a sledge hammer and even the deceased Jonathan Kent atop a snowy mountain are head-scratchers and deserved to have seen the cutting room floor.

Usually, a superhero’s popularity depends upon the context of time and perhaps, due to the darkness of the world as it is, gives way to audiences wanting to see the character as he was - namely the Reeve guise; bumbling geek Clark and the heroic, always got a smile for everyone, Kal-El – or as he is on the page. Snyder has instead used 9/11, terrorism and illegal aliens and has the film(s) reflect this dark, angry, miserable and political world we inhabit. Apparently, in an attempt to ground Superman in some sort of reality; an alien from an extinct planet, who can fly, is indestructible save for interaction with a glowing green rock, and shoots lasers from his eyes… Can he ever really be that realistic? An audience doesn’t need to delve too far to see the potential allegorical readings, they are all fairly obvious.

On the one hand, I miss the red pants, and the confident, almost care-free caped chappy who didn’t really seem to have a temper and was a friend to everyone. Yet on the other, a change is as good as a rest, it worked (mostly) for Batman. The Superman of my childhood is still accessible, and this is the franchise which will see WW onscreen for the very first time so why wouldn’t I give it the benefit of the doubt? Cavill’s Superman is at odds with his alien heritage and human one – as his mother states “you don’t owe the world a thing” but then, when it comes down to it, it is his human side which is the most affected when Luthor finally reveals his play and ultimately his alien self/limitations which helps destroy him. Reeve, interviewed in 1987, told future inheritors of the cape to never lose the humanity of him; “to forget he can fly; [his] super strength. He’s a gentleman.” Cavill’s is a gentlemen but it has to be on his terms and the humanity is there but it has taken a film and a half to uncover it, little to no smiles, and a human Bat to help.

This Bruce is older, greying at the temples, grizzled, tired and so, very angry. There is a ruthlessness to the incarnation; Affleck is actually very good and the irony is, murderous intent aside, this Bruce needs Superman to give his life some (re)purpose. Alfred (Jeremy Irons) is a younger, more sardonic Pennyworth who seems to have less faith in his billionaire brat and wearily (often sarkily) mutters under his breath a lot of the time. The hallucinations/dream sequences (one too many if you ask me) can be read as an alcoholic’s delusions but then a fleeting face from the future may prove integral to the next film but, yes you’ve guessed it, slightly unclear. I like this Bruce. Yes, he’s different, just like all the other actors who have portrayed him, there’s a fury to this one that it great to watch if a little at times growling, ragey and largely unexplained.

As is Luthor’s motive in proceedings – he want Kryptonite for assassination purposes and access to the crash site and Zod’s remains. Why does he need Batman for that? Eisenberg seems to channel Edward Nygma via Mark Zuckerberg – if you’re going to give us Lex then do so, not some weird, obnoxious Riddler-hybrid. He’s a sociopathic teenager hell bent on destroying the one man getting more attention than him. Yes, he’s a villain but he’s irritating rather than intimidating; he is more memorable than Spacey’s turn but not sure how high a bar that is to set, and the hair – why? It’s more distracting than the weird noises he makes.

Which brings me to Wonder Woman, a character I adore, and finally, she’s here. She’s not given nearly enough screen-time, nor given enough dialogue and my expectations were not particularly high following Gadot’s casting but her presence gave me a buzz, people even clapped in my screening for her. I haven’t been lucky enough to see an evolution of character or multiple versions of WW and so, I was happy with the little I saw. She kicks Doomsday’s derriere and seems to thoroughly enjoy doing it and as for the Turkish Airlines bit, SHE GOT OFF THE PLANE (phew) presumably to fly her own invisible one…. But not before she sums up the entire film (and perhaps fanboy-dom in general) in one snarky sentence – about little boys and their lack of inclination to share.

The supporting cast are fine, no real standouts. Callan Mulvey is now Russian arms dealer Anatoli Knyazev, last seen as Jack Rollins in The Winter Soldier (and you thought there could be no DC and Marvel crossovers). Fishburne is back as Perry White and far more flamboyant than the MoS version, Holly Hunter is great as Senator June Finch, who stands in the way of Luthor Jr but whose senate spiel is pointless. “We know what Superman can do” Do we, really? “We haven’t considered what he should do.” What does that even mean? Run every potential saving by the US government? Say, “okay I’ll help those people over there but not those here”? Wait for a phone-call on a flashing red telephone…oh wait. The word unilateral is thrown about several times which is exasperating; as if Superman saving folk is somehow a selfish act. Diane Lane and Amy Adams are, for the most part, bait, or perhaps I’m being unfair. Adams is definitely stronger in her performance here but I am yet to be convinced by her Lois and then there’s all that running about amid rubble and destruction and swimming… all in heels.

Snyder has always been commended for his visuals and there is a depletion of colour (not always as depressing at it sounds) with red, white and blue colour motifs dotted throughout and Affleck’s batsuit appears to riff off of Adam West’s outfit with the black on grey. There are nostalgic nods but let’s face it, these aren’t the characters we grew up with, and as the last week or so have shown, few seem willing to welcome change. I really liked the intertextual links and the Justice League Easter eggs (although, shoehorned isn’t the word) and, obscurely, The Wizard of Oz. It is referenced multiple times and I’m still contemplating why. Perhaps, it is tenuous commentary on American commerce or Lex requires courage, Bruce a brain and Clark a heart and then there’s Dorothy, the infamous orphan as all of our boys here. Plus, 1939, the year of the film’s release and the year Batman was created and joined him in the DC universe and there’s even a witch, sort of but I digress.

By the time the big face off presents itself, it’s not quite worth the wait, actually a little dull and oh so futile but Luthor is the puppet master. When both titular characters realise they should be working together, it should be joyous and not just that they realise they both have mothers named Martha. The score is a little hit-and-miss, Zimmer is renowned for big anthems and when the two titans do finally square up, I was expecting fireworks, not just a damn squib. Lex’s theme (The Red Capes Are Coming) is a standout as is Wonder Woman’s (Is She With You?), that electric cello is really quite something.

All in all, Dawn of Justice plays with some heavy themes; democracy, xenophobia, terrorism – not so terribly far removed from the world we live in, Snyder is determined to make the world as realistic as possible yet removes most of the fun. Truth, Justice and the American way – this *is* the America of today but it all feels too horribly realistic and befuddling – I would have liked Kal to be the beacon of hope his birth parents intended him to be, not least to give Henry Cavill a bit more to do. The religious imagery is still there, Superman is the Messiah (and a very miserable boy) just as in MoS: God v Man, etcetera. There are a multitude of questions and it is left up to the audience to decipher the mess (small children may have difficulty) yet there is levity, nowhere near enough but present. 

I’ve accepted the lack of comic-book iconography in Snyder’s interpretation and it’s only a little thing but would it hurt for Supes to smile? I enjoyed far more than I loathed, however, there is just one death that was a little too calculated…Zack, you meanie.

- Hel

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter

Or like our Facebook page

TV REVIEW: The Hollow Crown - Henry IV Part Two

The third episode of The Hollow Crown and the second part of Henry IV follows the aftermath of the Battle of Shrewsbury, the decaying relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff and the King dealing with the rebellions which continue to flourish in an uneasy England.

Lord Northumberland learns of Harry Hotspur's death and flees to Scotland for safety. The Archbishop of York plots another rebellion against Henry IV who is weakening after the toll of the battle. Hal is still torn between his old life and his new role as the heir apparent and has to come to terms with the fact that he soon might be King. Meanwhile, Falstaff is being chased by the Lord Justice, determined to keep him away from corrupting the young prince once again, but Falstaff is confident in Hal's love for him, believing that once Hal is King, he will bestow Royal offices upon his portly friend.


While still possessing the bawdy comedy and the slapstick of the first part of Henry IV, Part Two is a much more serious piece of work, dealing with the complications of growing up and accepting your responsibilities. The journey here is Prince Hal's, begun in Part One, but reaching its destination in Part Two as he cements his position as the honourable heir apparent and shedding the rebellious youth who we saw in the previous play. Tom Hiddleston, reliable as ever, manages to avoid falling into the trap of playing the two as very different halves of the same person, but instead gives us a nuanced performance that captures the development of Hal. The cheeky prankster is still there but is measured by his realisation that shedding Falstaff and the other residents of East Cheep is the way to go. The coronation scene in which Hal finally banishes Falstaff from his life and the country was emotional, both in terms of seeing finally become King Henry V but also the act of banishment itself. Simon Russell Beale has portrayed one of Shakespeare's most famous characters with a great balance of both the comic and tragic elements that Falstaff possesses.



As always with Shakespeare, a lot of the very important character developments are shown through the use of soliloquy and the two most powerful scenes in this episode were those given over to Henry and Hal as they contemplate the effects of kingship, for as Henry mournfully observes, 'uneasy lies the head that wears the crown'. Both Jeremy Irons and Hiddleston capture your attention in their separate moments and the setting of both scenes in the throne room really develop the sense of the inevitablity of kingship. Hal is very aware that his father's death is necessary for him to become King and the internal conflict of this was well-pitched and enhanced the emotional weight of the scene. The focus isn't all on the kingly pair though with Hal's younger brother John also getting a look in on the action. His takedown of the rebellion alongside Westmoreland was a properly triumphant moment and whilst not entirely honourable, it was a well-handled bait-and-switch for both the audience and the doomed rebels.


The episode's shortcomings are few but can probably be traced back to the play itself. Nowhere near as famous as the plays that come before or after, it is also not as strong structurally or dramatically. The few standout scenes I've mentioned are just that, exceptional pieces of theatre that provide great moments for actors and audiences alike. However, those in between lack some of the punch of the other moments. Whilst the farcical chase between the Lord Justice and Falstaff culminating in all out street brawl would probably work very well on stage, on screen it felt out of place with the more sombre tone that Part Two took. I'm well aware of the necessity to further separate the characters of Hal and Falstaff, but the jumps in tone sometimes felt a little jarring. That being said, I would watch Julie Walters in anything and her take on the beleaguered Mistress Quickly was one of the highlights of both plays.

The Hollow Crown is one impressive piece of television and I'm already eagerly awaiting the next instalment. Whilst Part Two didn't quite match up to the dizzying heights set by the truly brilliant Henry IV Part One, it held its own for the most part and gave Irons, Hiddleston and Beale plenty of moments to shine. Next week, we get to see Hal as Henry V in all his St. Crispin's Day glory and I'm already feeling just that little bit more patriotic.


- Becky


You can read both Becky's and Jen's reviews for Henry IV Part One here and here.
Or follow Becky on Twitter @beckygracelea

TV REVIEW: The Hollow Crown - Henry IV Part One

The Hollow Crown continues this week with Henry IV Part One, the second in the tetralogy of history plays and a personal favourite of both of us here at Assorted Buffery. With Richard II establishing Henry Bolingbroke as King, Shakespeare moves into showing the events of his troubled reign.

Henry IV Part One follows the rise of Prince Hal (Tom Hiddleston) from drunken reprobate to warrior heir apparent after his father, King Henry (Jeremy Irons) faces an uprising from the Welsh rebel, Owen Glendower (Robert Pugh) and Harry Hotspur (Joe Armstrong). Beginning in East Cheap with Poins, Shakespearian Unsung Hero Number 10 (David Dawson), Mistress Quickly (Julie Walters) and the excessive drinker and cowardly storyteller, John Falstaff (Simon Russell Beale), Hal must grow up from playing pranks to leading his father's army and, as this is Shakespeare, we get tragedy, fearsome confrontations and more than your usual amount of debauchery.


As with Richard II, the action flits between several places as the play follows the King, his son and the rebellious Hotspur throughout, but unlike the previous episode, the cuts in between felt a lot more measured and well-judged. The tavern scenes in particular were a highlight, providing much of the comedy as Hal and Poins humiliate Falstaff repeatedly for no particular reason other than that they can. The battle scenes towards the end of the play did betray the episode's budget somewhat as, rather than being treated to extensive armies a la Lord of the Rings, we got close-ups of twenty men crammed into a shot to make it look like there's a lot. Thankfully, it didn't detract too much from the drama itself as once the fighting started, the frenetic battling was enough to hold your attention. My only complaint was that they didn't include the hilarious scenes in which Hotspur's ally, the Douglas, marches round the battlefield attempting to kill the King, only to repeatedly discover he's just killed another man dressed like the King. However, when you've got Falstaff bumbling through the battle trying not to die, the laughs were still there to be had.


It's safe to say that there is not one bad performance in this entire episode. The minor characters, particularly those in the tavern, provide a great background for the central figures to shine, supporting them well. Even Maxine Peake managed to steal a scene without saying more than one or two lines. Simon Russell Beale's Falstaff was every inch the drunken, bombastic figure that we all know and love, combining the comic and tragic inherent in the character well, especially in the scene in which he is 'playing' Hal. His plea to not leave Falstaff behind was heartbreaking, a man desperate to cling on to what little vicarious glory he has left. As the wilful and aptly-named Hotspur, Joe Armstrong was a forceful presence and never resorted to simply playing the villain. Hotspur in the play provides an opposite character arc to Hal, beginning as noble and honourable before falling too far from grace to be truly redeemed and Armstrong captured his inner conflict perfectly. Michelle Dockery, as his wife Kate, provided a great foil to her husband with excellent chemistry between the pair showing a fiery marriage based on a mutual respect, adding to the tragedy of the play's outcome. 


But Part One belonged very much to Jeremy Irons and Tom Hiddleston as the central father and son who begin in conflict but end united. Hiddleston's star is firmly in the ascendancy after fantastic performances in big blockbusters like Avengers Assemble, but here he proves he can play the conflicted hero too. In the afore-mentioned play scene in the tavern, the moment in which he realises that he must re-take his place at the heir apparent was excellently pitched with just the loss of a smile to convey a key character development. Also, his impression of Jeremy Irons was brilliant, spot-on in everything from intonation to posture, providing extra comedy to an already funny scene. Irons' acting talent has long been something to be reckoned with and their confrontation scene was a masterclass to watch. As a king struggling to hold on to a legacy that was never his to begin with, Irons lets the conflicted emotions come to the forefront, the guilt at his own situation and the rage towards his son filling every single line. 


My expectations were particularly high as it is the play I've been most looking forward to seeing adapted, but Henry IV Part One more than surpassed them, offering all of the themes that make the play so compelling. Next week, we're into the sequel, Henry IV Part Two, as we see a father and son united and Hal moves further away from Falstaff to his destiny as the future King of England.


- Becky


You can read Becky's review of The Hollow Crown - Richard II here.