Posted on

Dunkirk: Review

Last week I had the pleasure of seeing Christopher Nolan’s newest movie, Dunkirk, which I can now easily say is one of my new favorite movies. I am fascinated by the work of Christopher Nolan, and have seen most of his movies. By far one of my favorite directors, he constantly is seeking ways to explore what can be done with filmmaking, and to challenge your expectations when it comes to story and style.

And that’s what he does once again with Dunkirk. Based on a true story of the evacuation of Dunkirk beach in May-June of 1940, Dunkirk was first announced in 2015. Early reports claimed it would be a World War II action-thriller movie, perhaps in the vein of Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, or Fury. But it’s my opinion Dunkirk stands unique as a war movie. There are several things, I think, that set it apart and make it atypical of the genre. First, there is basically no fighting. There are a couple instances of gunfire, or dogfighting in the air, or bombings of ships, but that’s it. There is no charge at the enemy, no battlefield. Second, it tells a true story through something I’m going to call “transparent fiction.” Many war movies will either take true historical figures and dramatize a true story about them (i.e. Valkyrie or Hacksaw Ridge) or create fictional characters but tell a believable though fictional story about them (i.e. Fury). Dunkirk blends these together. It tells a true story, but uses fictional characters to do this. However, the way in which Nolan created these characters allows for the story to be told without compromising the actual history. I say “transparent fiction” because the film is not about these fictional characters’ lives and backstories. It’s about the story, the journey. And that is gripping enough.

A quick note on the cast and characters of the film. Many of the characters are young men, presumably around eighteen or nineteen years old. Nolan cast unknown actors in the young roles, a move that I think furthered the transparency of the fiction, and allowed us to experience the movie along with them, without focusing on the actors themselves. The roles of adults are filled with well-known British actors, like Mark Rylance and Kenneth Branagh and recurring Nolan collaborators Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy. The only arguably controversial casting choice is probably Harry Styles, who plays the small part of Alex. I’ll admit when I heard Styles, known for being a singer in the British boy-band group One Direction, had been cast, I was skeptical. But I was pleasantly surprised by his performance. His part is not big, but he proves that he is a talented actor.

There are other things that make Dunkirk stand apart–the visuals, the nonlinear narrative, the choice to never actually show the enemy. I was reading some reviews after I watched the movie, and one of them mentioned that Dunkirk actually feels more like a horror movie than a war movie. An interesting observation, but I won’t go into it in-depth because I don’t have any experience in the horror genre.

One of my favorite aspects of the film was the nonlinear narrative, a technique Nolan has used before in several of his films, including Memento and The Prestige. The film covers three main stories: the plight of the soldiers waiting to be evacuated from the beach, a man and his son on their way across the English channel to rescue the soldiers, and a RAF pilot dogfighting with a German pilot in the air above the channel. These stories overlap and are told nonlinearly. Nolan opens the film by introducing the three plots with three different scenes, each having a title card: 1. the Mole – One Week ; 2. the Sea – One Day ; and 3. the Air – One Hour. Eventually, the three plots converge at the climax of the movie.

Despite the somewhat complicated narrative structure, Dunkirk is a fundamentally simple story. It’s a story of survival, not of fighting or honor or war. It’s themes are more subtle than some of Nolan’s previous films. It deals quietly with issues of courage and cowardice, hate and forgiveness, hopefulness and despair.

Dunkirk brings us a new type of war movie. It’s uniqueness does not make it “better” or “worse” than other, more conventional war movies, but it does show us the side of the war-story that isn’t normally shown. There were many battles leading up to the battle of Dunkirk that would make for very interesting, and more typical war movies, but that’s not the story Nolan wanted to tell. I don’t think Nolan set out to redefine the genre, and he’s not going to. He doesn’t need to redefine the genre, but he has certainly broadened it and deepened, enriched it with this new film.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on Instagram, WordPress, or Facebook! You can also follow me on Instagram @stuartrozendal_author. If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe by submitting your email address on the right.

Posted on

An Entertainment-Based Culture

 

Our culture is oversaturated in entertainment. It is inescapable. Everything from our news feeds to our Netflix queues is designed to entertain us in some way. This preoccupation with being entertained is starting to have visible consequences.

Entertainment is, in itself, not a bad thing. The problem arises now that entertainment has become the lens through which we perceive our entire world. No longer is entertainment reserved to the television, or the novel. We want to be entertained by our classes, our news stories, our church services, our politics.

But, why is this dangerous? Why shouldn’t we seek entertainment from all these areas?

Because often when we are entertained, we are passive. Entertainment pours into us and requires nothing back. I would argue that this causes us to lose our ability to think critically. We don’t need to, because we are told what to think. We become susceptible to the agendas often contained in shows, movies, news stories. Visual media, by its very nature, is biased, because it can select what parts of a story to show. Now, this can be a useful tool when telling a fictional story. But it is incredibly dangerous when it comes to something like reporting the news.

Now, I need to acknowledge that some forms of entertainment do encourage critical thinking. A great movie or fantastic book will stretch your beliefs and stimulate your mind and encourage you to think deeply on the issues it addresses and the questions it raises. But these movies, these books, are generally not as popular as, say, Reality TV, which does not require any sort of critical thinking. It is mindless.

Passive entertainment would not be so dangerous if it hadn’t bled into other areas of our culture. Specifically politics (and religion, but that’s a topic for another post). Look at the 2016 Presidential Election: it was controversial and filled with scandals, but it was a product of our culture. It’s what we asked for, even if we didn’t know it. We no longer seek out political candidates who can eloquently express their opinions on modern world issues. No—we seek out celebrities. That’s what the two major candidates of the election were, even if not in the traditional sense.

We idolize celebrities because they are entertaining. They have become our cultural leaders. Many celebrities offered opinions on the election (and other current issues), and many people listened to them as authoritative sources. I know that many celebrities are educated people, and can speak wisely on world issues, but just as many of them are as unable to articulate a clear opinion as the average person. Nevertheless, because of their high exposure by the media, we listen to and repeat their views.

President Trump’s election opened the door for a relatively new idea. The idea that anyone can sit in the Oval Office, even without political experience. I did a quick Google search for “celebrities for President” and I was shocked by how many articles had been written in complete seriousness discussing which movie stars or talk show hosts would make fantastic candidates for the 2020 election. The top ones: Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson.

While many of these celebrities are fine people who have done great things for the world, they do not belong in politics, just as politicians do not belong in entertainment.

I don’t know where our culture is headed next. I don’t have the wisdom, experience, or tools necessary to predict its direction over the upcoming years, but from looking back, I can see that culture swings in a pendulum. It goes to one extreme, and then swings to the other. I think we are approaching the entertainment-extreme, and will likely swing back in the other direction in the next few decades. I stand somewhere between cultural optimism and cultural pessimism. I believe that humanity is born sinful, but is ultimately redeemable.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on Instagram, WordPress, or Facebook! You can also follow me on Instagram @stuartrozendal_author. If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe by submitting your email address on the right.

Posted on

Negative Narcissism: “My Problems Are Worse Than Yours”

I can’t count the number of times I have witnessed and participated in conversations that essentially boil down to “my problem is worse than your problem, and thus I am better than you.” I remember conversations like this going back all the way to early elementary school, when our teachers tried to get us to stop comparing our problems, because it “wasn’t nice”. As I wasn’t particularly inclined towards deep introspection as an eight-year-old (I don’t think many eight-year-olds are), this wasn’t something I thought seriously about until the past few years.

In high school, especially, I saw the problem of “negative narcissism” escalate. So many times I found myself insisting that I had it worse than my fellow students; that I had more homework, or that I had a harder test coming up. And I wasn’t the only one guilty of this. Just about every student talks like this. And it’s not just students. You hear talk like this all around you. Someone had a rough commute to work? Well, it wasn’t as bad as yours!

By insisting that our problems are worse than those around us, we assert a false martyrdom and imply that we have, by our own strength, risen above whatever trials we face, while simultaneously disregarding the legitimate troubles of our peers.

This is an issue.

I chose the term “negative narcissism” because I felt it summarized this concept pretty well. Narcissism is craving admiration, and “negative narcissism” is craving that admiration for things that are, well, “negative”. Negative narcissism is problematic for a number of reasons. It creates an atmosphere of jealous competition for who has it worse. It makes us callous to the genuine issues those around us face, and gives us an attitude of tragic self-superiority.

I had to really confront this issue in my own life my senior year of high school. I had taken on an admittedly heavy load of classes, extracurriculars, and work, but they were all things I had committed to and freely chosen to do and thus I had no right to complain about them. However, I did complain about them. Extensively. I lamented continually to anyone who would listen about how I, tragic, heroic me, had taken these many responsibilities on, and how I was being tried and tested by them, but I was, despite all odds, overcoming them. Finally it came to a point where my parents told me that I had no right to complain about this and either I had to shape up or drop some of the responsibilities. I realized then that I didn’t actually dislike being involved in so many things, I just needed the affirmation of others, and I wanted them to recognize and admire how much I was struggling.

I am not saying that in the few months since I have graduated I have overcome negative narcissism in my own life. It’s something I still struggle with daily, but I have become conscious of it, at least, in my own life. It is important to recognize that we all struggle with things, and maybe, in our own eyes, our struggles are “worse” than someone else’s. But that doesn’t mean we are better or worse than them because our trials are different. Ultimately, we need to encourage each other in brotherly love and build one another up selflessly, with no agenda.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on Instagram, WordPress, or Facebook! You can also follow me on Instagram @stuartrozendal_author. If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe by submitting your email address on the right. (A note to past subscribers: your subscription was removed when my site’s domain was updated, so you will need to re-subscribe).

Posted on

Spiderman: Homecoming Review

I have mixed opinions of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (I love it for the most part, but I recognize that the movies do have some flaws) but Spider-Man: Homecoming was exactly what the MCU and the character of Spider-Man needed. For the past two decades or so, Spider-Man has been in the hands of Sony Pictures, meaning that Marvel Studios (the studio that has made all of the interconnected Marvel Movies) cannot make a movie about their most famous character, or even reference in their films.

Sony tends to produce good films, but their track record with Spider-Man has been mixed, to say the least. Back in the ’90’s, James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar) tried to make a movie about Spider-Man, starring Leonardo diCaprio, though it never made it past the development stages. That’s actually a movie I would have loved to watch. In the year 2000, Marvel relaunched the Spider-Man comics with Ultimate Spider-Man, and this modernized interpretation of the character has strongly influenced Sony’s two takes on the character.

Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, released from 2002 to 2007, certainly had its ups and downs. It has consistently been lauded as the best take on the character, though personally I am not a huge fan. I’m sure if I had watched the series when it first came out, I would have appreciated it more, but I watched it after I had seen other superhero movies, with amazing special effects and much better dialogue. While Raimi’s trilogy did manage to capture some of the nostalgic essence of the character, I think it had poor casting. Their villains were generally cast well (Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina especially) but, as much as I admire both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as talented actors, I think they were badly miscast as Peter Parker and Mary Jane.

After plans for Spider-Man 4 (which could have been a very good movie) were scrapped, Sony decided to reboot their series with The Amazing Spider-Man, which was released in 2012. Response to The Amazing Spider-Man was mixed, to say the least, as people compared it unfavorably to the more “faithful” adaptation by Sam Raimi, just ten years ago. While The Amazing Spider-Man had much better casting and overall stronger writing and effects, it suffered from a bit of an identity crisis. Unsure of what direction to take their reboot, Sony made essentially a remake of Spider-Man (2002). Instead of being innovative with this interpretation of the character and creating a more original story, The Amazing Spider-Man retold the origin story told in Spider-Man (2002), arguably crafting a weaker and less emotionally-compelling plot.

The Amazing Spider-Man was supposed to launch a large shared Spider-man universe for Sony, involving solo films for him as well as many of his villains. If this series had been made, it would have likely been very good. However, with the 2014 release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony realized that response to their rebooted series was steadily dropping. I enjoyed TASM2, though it did have poor plotting and I think Dane Dehaan was miscast as Harry Osborn. Sony delayed, and then cancelled the rest of their plans for TASM franchise, leaving the character in a sort of limbo as everyone wondered what would happen with him.

Before TASM franchise was cancelled in 2015, I wrote a blog post about the direction I hoped to see the franchise take. Near the end of the post, I wrote:

I hope that Marvel gets the rights back to Spiderman in the near future (but not before the Amazing franchise is finished). It would be interesting to see him integrated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in some way. I would love to see someone like Asa Butterfield take on the role in, say, eight or ten years, in an adaptation that is not only true to the comics, but truly amazing in every way.

– “The Amazing Spiderman [sic] Franchise”, August 24, 2014

Almost three years after I posted that, my dream of seeing Spider-Man enter the MCU came true. In 2015, Sony and Marvel announced that the studios would be joining together to produce a second reboot of the franchise, this time with the character in the MCU continuity. Rumors flew for the next few months about who they would cast, and soon British actor Tom Holland was pinned to play the titular hero.

Marvel said they would be bringing the character back to high school, which originally worried some fans because both previous film series had tried to do the same thing, with mixed results. Most of the “not so good” results came from the fact that the actors playing high-school aged Peter Parker in Spider-man (2002) and TASM (2012) were both in their mid-to-late twenties, playing a 16-18 year old character. Tom Holland was about 18/19 when he was cast, making him almost the perfect age to play a high schooler.

Over the next year, Marvel slowly released the rest of the cast for the moving, including Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes/the Vulture, and Zendaya as a mysterious unnamed character. The internet exploded with outrage at Marisa Tomei’s casting as Aunt May, because Peter’s aunt is traditionally a woman between 60 and 80, while Marisa Tomei is 52, and looks younger. After some thought, I understood why Marvel cast a younger actress. I personally have three aunts, who are all in their 40s/50s. Being approximately the same age as Peter Parker, it wouldn’t make sense for me to have an aunt who was the same age as my grandmothers (who are both celebrating birthdays, one a month ago and one this week. Happy birthdays, Grandmas!).

When Zendaya was cast in an unnamed role, the internet again exploded, this time with debate about who her character was. Most speculation said that she was some incarnation of Peter’s iconic love interest, Mary Jane Watson, while both Zendaya and the studio insisted she would be playing an original character.

I followed the casting process closely, and waited anxiously to see the movie. I saw it last week, the day after it came out, and I was blown away.

I loved everything about this movie, from the cast, to the dialogue, to the plot, to the cinematography. It was all spectacular. Homecoming succeeded where the two previous film versions of Spider-Man failed. Homecoming found that balance of high school life with crime fighting.

Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker is a joy to watch. The young British actor fully inhabits the role, and brings life to both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, really making the costumed identity another part of Peter, rather than interpreting it as a separate persona, as Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield did. Holland did a brilliant job of portraying Peter’s emotional journey in and out of the costume. His portrayal is closest to the comics–while “nerdy” he is not the dork of Tobey Maguire’s portrayal nor the emo outcast of Andrew Garfield. He feels like a kid; a kid who has been thrown into a much bigger world than what he is ready to handle.

The supporting cast is also brilliant. Michael Keaton is iconic with as Adrian Toomes/the Vulture. His chillingly sinister portrayal makes him probably the best film Spider-Man villain, and perhaps one of the best Marvel villains since Tom Hiddleston’s Loki.

Marisa Tomei proves to be the perfect May Parker in her balanced portrayal of a maternal figure who still has her own identity and personality. She plays a version of the character who connects more with Peter, someone he actually goes to, not someone he must hide from. She also has some of the most hilarious and iconic lines in the movie.

The high-school cast was excellent. Newcomer Jacob Batalon shined as Peter’s best friend Ned. Zendaya was a force to be reckoned with, despite her relatively small role as Michelle (which has a fantastic twist at the end). Laura Harrier as Liz is the second-best love interest in a Spider-Man movie, after Emma Stone’s wonderful portrayal of Gwen Stacey. Ned, Michelle, and Liz are all quasi-original characters that take small cues from various comic book characters, though they feel like fully realized people. I can only hope we get more from them in the sequels (especially Zendaya).

A great cast can only do so much, though, if the plot of the movie isn’t good. That’s where TASM failed. However, the plot of Homecoming is as close to perfect as you can get. I won’t give away the details because I think everyone should go see it for themselves, but it tells an original story that, despite its “smaller” stakes, is one of the most thrilling and engaging comic book movies I have ever seen.

Lately, comic book movies have fallen into a common blockbuster fallacy, of having the climactic threat be something world-ending. For instance, the alien invasions in The Avengers and Man of Steel, or the bizarre lizard-transformation of The Amazing Spider–man, or the nuclear bomb of The Dark Knight Rises. While directors and writers might think that a bigger threat like this makes the stakes of the story higher, it actually does the reverse. When the main threat of a movie is so unbelievably big, an audience is no longer able to suspend their disbelief long enough to accept that the heroes might actually fail. What so many writers don’t understand is that for stakes to be high, they just need to matter to the character.

And that is where Homecoming succeeds. The main threat of this movie is not something that is going to end the world. Really, if Peter/Spider-man doesn’t succeed in defeating the villain, not much would change in his world. But the reason we are so engaged in the plot, and so terrified for him to fail, is because we don’t know if he is going to succeed. The stakes are small enough that he could believably fail, and thus the stakes have never been higher. The emotional weight of the film comes as we watch the plot unfold, wondering not how will the hero succeed, but will he succeed?

Overall, this movie has a light tone. It is not the depressing, philosophical nightmares of most DC movies, but it really isn’t the forced comedy romp of many Marvel movies. It stands at an interesting middle ground. Wrestling with important issues of duty and identity, it doesn’t force these concepts down our throats like some previous Spider-Man movies have. Rather, it shows us the struggles Peter faces, and ultimately one of his choices regarding his identity, and whom he reveals it to, will leave many viewers unsatisfied. It left me unsatisfied, but after some thought, I decided that was their intention. And I can accept that.

Much of the light tone comes from Homecoming’s portrayal of a high school romance. The romance present in Sam Raimi’s series was a confusing, convoluted, and overblown mess that I could never invest myself in because I felt no chemistry between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. The romance in TASM was the best part of the series. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone oozed chemistry (they were dating in real life) and brought a cheerful, youthful life to their romance. My only problem with their romantic plot is that it did not feel like a high school romance. It felt like something out of a particularly good rom-com. In Homecoming, however, the romance feels like something I could see in my own high school. When Peter (SPOILER) tells Liz that he likes her, it is painfully awkward and painfully realistic (believe me, I know from experience). The subsequent handling of the romance is subtle and reflects the adolescent ages of the characters. And, one of the most interesting things, is that it does not really have any sort of closure. At the end of the movie, you are left feeling like it is unfulfilled, incomplete. But, honestly, that’s part of what makes it realistic.

Before I end the review, I want to briefly comment on some of the more technical aspects of the movie. Musically, this is one of the best Marvel movies. The movies in the MCU tend to have pretty generic, forgettable scores. While Homecoming’s score is nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary, it is very good. Also, the cinematography of Homecoming is visually attractive and pleasing. Again, nothing groundbreaking, but it is more aesthetically “complete” and “rich” than many of the other MCU movies, which have lately started to look a bit visually bland.

Also, quick note on the content of the movie. Homecoming received a PG13 rating, and I can see why. The language is surprisingly strong at times, and there is one joke in particular, while admittedly quite funny, is also very crass and probably not appropriate for younger viewers because of the subject it glorifies. As far as violence goes, there’s very little, and any sort of romance in the movie is entirely appropriate for young viewers.

So, final impressions. Spider-man: Homecoming is my new favorite Spider-Man movie and probably my favorite comic book movie (closely followed by Wonder Woman). It brings us a personal, thrilling, engaging story filled with lovable characters, sinister villains, and edge-of-your seats plots. It gets everything right that the other series got wrong, and it has defined a new era for the MCU.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on either Facebook or WordPress! If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe by submitting your email address on the right.

Posted on

Reflections on the Fourth of July and the American Identity of a Christian

I am proud to be an American. I always have been proud, and I sincerely hope that I always will be. Lately, what constitutes “America” (morally and philosophically, not literally) has become somewhat ambivalent, and there are many things that America now promotes that I do not agree with. I, like many conservatives, feel the increasing pressure to accept beliefs regarding abortion, or gay marriage (and other hotly-debated issues) and am told when I express my own beliefs, which go against what is popular, that I am being un-American.

But still, I am proud to be an American. No matter the divisions that our country faces, there are certain ideals that we can all agree to: freedom, justice, equality. Though even the definitions of those have begun to be debated, most people will affirm that these are good and right. Notice, I did not include “truth” on that short list, because in our modern culture, truth is no longer something people hold to. Truth has become a choice, right and wrong has become a conversation, and even good and evil creep ever closer to pure gray.

These “American Ideals” of freedom, justice, equality (et al) were not born with our nation. We merely adopted them as our own. Before that and since then, these ideals, and other, bigger truths, have been found in a more eternal source: Christianity. A relationship with Christ provides the true fulfillment and freedom that many people seek from America. You cannot (and should not) find your salvation in a country. Now, whether or not America is (or ever was) a Christian nation…that’s not something I have the time or energy to go into with this post, though that is a very interesting and important discussion to have.

I am proud to be an American. America is not perfect; it never has been and it never will be. But no country built by humankind can ever attain perfection. Only the Kingdom of God will be perfect, and any attempt we make to reach that ideal will ultimately fail in one way or another.

I am proud to be an American. Like most Americans, I take joy in displaying that patriotism, especially yesterday on the Fourth of July. I enjoy many of the traditions that go along with celebrating the birth of our nation, but yesterday I started thinking about my attitude towards patriotism.

A few months ago, when I was still in school, we had a speaker come into our Worldview class and talk about all sorts of things we faced in our modern culture. We covered many topics, and honestly I don’t remember most of what he said. But he said one thing, almost offhand, that has stuck with me. He said that we regularly pledge allegiance to the flag of America, in a solemn vow taken with our hands over our hearts, but we don’t do the same thing with our Bibles. We don’t treat our faith, our Heavenly citizenship, with the same reverence that we treat our Earthly one.

When the speaker first said that, I was rather taken aback and honestly quite defensive of taking the pledge of allegiance. After all, it’s an act of honor, respect, and duty to our country–our home. But then I confronted my perspective. I was thinking far too much from an immediate, Earthly point of view, and not taking into account the fact that ultimately I am a citizen of Heaven, and that should always come first. The conclusion I reached was that it is not bad to pledge allegiance to the flag, and it is not bad to be reverent during the national anthem–in fact I would say that both of these things, and other patriotic practices, are good. However, a very important problem does arise when our perspective becomes skewed. When our role as Americans takes precedence over our duty as Christians….that is when there is a problem.

I am proud to be an American, but that is not where I find my identity. My identity is in Christ, and I am infinitely more proud to say that I am a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom than to say that I am a Citizen of America. To my fellow Christians, don’t feel bad about showing patriotism. But, I encourage you to take the time to examine your perspective and your priorities. Where are you finding your identity?

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on either Facebook or WordPress! If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe by submitting your email address on the right.

Posted on

Wonder Woman: Review

[Warning: this review contains major spoilers for Wonder Woman]

Last week, I watched Wonder Woman in theaters. I went in cautiously optimistic, after having been disappointed by both Man of Steel and Batman V. Superman. I had heard almost exclusively good things about Wonder Woman, but most reviews lauding it were from progressive perspectives, and I wasn’t sure if I would find the same “wonders” in this movie as they had.

However, I can safely say that this movie was incredible. I was riveted to the screen from the moment Gal Gadot appeared in the modern-day Louvre to the moment the final credits rolled. Wonder Woman is a classic epic, a textbook Hero’s Journey monomythic story, and it is truly wonderful.

Wonder Woman is, at it’s heart, a tale of lost innocence and disillusionment with the world and with mankind. It is a mythic tale with a more modern message: that sometimes the greatest darkness is the darkness within. While this message is a bit grim, the movie is surprisingly hopeful. Unlike it’s predecessor Batman V Superman, which was a monstrously baroque piece drowning in its own overblown existential musings, Wonder Woman is clear, succinct, and poignant, presenting a melancholy message in a way that is straightforward and personal. It is full of wisdom won through trial, triumph, and loss.

In a world of blockbuster movies that are becoming increasingly incoherent, muddled, and self-aware, the simplicity and honesty of Wonder Woman is refreshing. It is a film that is emotional without being melodramatic, action-packed without being gratuitous, and humorous without being campy. It is, at its heart, a classic coming-of-age story centered around the beautiful, naive, powerful, strong, and passionate “Diana of Themyskira, Daughter of Hippolyta”, who is brought to life in the immediately iconic portrayal by Gal Gadot.

About two years ago, when I heard that Gal Gadot had been cast in Batman V Superman as the iconic female superhero, I didn’t really know what to think. I had never heard of Gal Gadot, which I took as a good sign. Generally when producers/directors choose an unknown, they do so because he or she was the best possible choice. Admittedly, she was not who I was expecting to get cast, and I don’t think anyone else was really expecting it either. When I was writing this post I went back and looked at the many casting predictions for Wonder Woman. The primary fan choices that I saw popping up again and again were Morena Baccarin, Bridget Regan, Michelle Ryan, Jessica Biel, Jaimie Alexander, and Gemma Arterton. I never saw anyone suggest Gal Gadot, an Israeli actress of European Jewish descent who was known primarily for her role in the Fast and Furious franchise.

There was a lot of backlash to the casting of Gal Gadot (a non-American) as Wonder Woman, whom many consider an American icon. There was also a lot of support for the cultural diversity DC was showing. I was intrigued by the choice, and eager to see how it played out. Gadot went on to be my favorite part of Batman V Superman. She was underused in that movie, and when she got the spotlight in Wonder Woman, it seemed that this is a role she was truly born for.

Onscreen, Gadot portrays Diana’s transition from naive and inexperienced warrior to battle-hardened heroine, a transition she portrays with grace, strength, and humanity. Diana is raised on Themyskira, a “paradise-island” populated by the Amazons, a race of warrior-women led by Queen Hippolyta (Danish actress Connie Nielsen) and General Antiope (Robin Wright of Princess Bride and House of Cards fame). Hippolyta, the mother of Diana, does not wish for her daughter to become a warrior, though Diana trains in secret with Antiope and eventually becomes the greatest warrior of all the Amazons. As an adult, she rescues American pilot Steve Trevor from the sea and learns from him of the “war to end all wars” (WWI) that is raging beyond the magical borders of Themyskira. Filled with a desire to help and fight, and the naive belief that if she kills Ares, the god of war, she can stop all fighting and suffering, Diana leaves Themyskira against her mother’s wishes, taking with her ancient relics of Amazonian warriors.

Diana’s journey throughout the film, one in which she is confronted with the true horrors of the world and of war, reflects mankind’s historic journey to understand the true complexity of evil and war. Diana believes that Ares has embodied human General Ludendorff (Danny Huston), a German who is working on a chemical weapon that will turn the tides of the war, and that if she kills Ludendorff, humanity will be freed from his oppressive rule, and will once again live in peace and harmony. This attitude is allegorical, in a way, to mankind’s belief that the way to end all fighting is to simply kill the right people.

However, when Diana succeeds, finally, in killing Ludendorff, she is confronted with a terrible sight: the war has continued. People are still fighting, still slaughtering innocents. Diana becomes distraught and confused, and upon realizing that evil resides in mankind itself, she resolves to leave, to abandon humanity. She is then faced with the realization that she has not killed Ares, and that Ares has rather taken the form of Sir Patrick (David Thewlis), an Englishman who is supposedly trying to bring peace to the world, though his ultimate plan is to destroy humanity.

Ares reveals to Diana that she is actually a goddess, the daughter of Zeus, and he tries to use her grief over the depravity of mankind to convince her to join him. When Steve Trevor, the pilot Diana rescued and fell in love with, commits an act of heroic self-sacrifice, Diana’s faith in humanity is restored and she comes into her full power and battles Ares. This scene is one of the most powerful scenes I have ever watched in a superhero blockbuster movie. Beautifully composed, it is an epic battle sequence between two celestial beings of unimaginable power, yet it has an intimate feeling of poignancy and sorrow as you see the raw emotion behind Diana’s fighting as she realizes the reason she fights: love.

The final battle scene, despite being stunning and thrilling, is visually and stylistically reserved, especially compared to the excessive battles of Batman V Superman, which reminded me of the mythically Biblical descriptions of Paradise Lost in which Lucifer is cast down from heaven:

Him the Almighty Power
Hurled headlong flaming from the Ethereal sky
With hideous ruin and combustion down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In Adamantine Chains and penal Fire.

(Paradise Lost, Book 1 – John Milton)

The fighting scenes in Wonder Woman are simple and beautifully choreographed. They feature little-more than slow-motion feats of acrobatics from various actresses, but there is a sort of reserved elegance about it. The film never glorifies the violence it portrays, unlike too many superhero films.

Two connected scenes sum up the depiction of violence in Wonder Woman. The first is an emotionally thrilling scene in which Diana emerges from the trenches of fighting in WWI, ignoring Steve’s pleas for her to remain in safety, and enters No Man’s Land. She advances across the desolate expanse, effortlessly batting away enemy shells, and clearing the path for her fellow soldiers. A scene rich in symbolism for overcoming obstacles, it is deeply emotional and represents and important point of Diana’s emotional journey.

They succeed in overcoming the Germans and enter the town that the Germans have occupied and oppressed, where they fight off soldiers. Thinking they have reached victory, they quickly become aware of a sniper in the steeple of a church, attempting to gun civilians down. Steve and his fellow soldiers provide Diana with a platform to jump off of, and she soars up to the steeple, immediately pulverizing it. She rises from the rubble of the church and the townspeople cheer for her.

This scene made me pause in the theater and think for a moment. Had the movie just symbolically replaced God with Wonder Woman? Was that what I was seeing? Though that is one interpretation you could probably take, I thought about it more, and what seems more likely to me is that the movie was condemning weaponized religion. After all, Diana did not destroy the entire church. Rather, she destroyed the part that was offering shelter to a sniper. I believe that represents the religion that is used to attack and destroy. We as Christians are called to be a part of a Church that seeks to help and save the lost, not destroy. Wonder Woman is not a Christian movie, but it is not an anti-Christian one either.

Wonder Woman does everything in its beautifully simple, elegantly mythic story that a superhero movie should do. If this is the sort of movie DC continues to produce, then they have won me over. It is a movie filled with growth and triumph, loss and lessons-learned. Its humor is based on poignantly human moments, and its message is one of eternal gravity and importance, that humanity has ubiquitously sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are not perfect, we are naturally depraved (sinful). Redemption is possible, but in order to do so, we must die to ourselves, pick up our crosses, and follow Christ. Like I said earlier, Wonder Woman is not a Christian movie, but the message is presents does contain truth.

Some final thoughts — Patty Jenkins, a relatively unknown director, has cemented a place in cinematic history for herself with this movie. She has crafted a brilliant and memorable story, and delivered the herculean task of bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen for the first time in history–and she did it flawlessly. Also, the music of this movie is absolutely brilliant. The score is reserved, but it soars during emotional moments or intense sequences. And the theme that ties it all together is absolutely amazing. It is played during the climax on an electric cello and I was totally geeking out internally in the theater.

Wonder Woman is definitely one of my new favorite superhero movies, and I think that if other filmmakers learn from it, it could define a new generation of superhero films, ones that aren’t bogged down by excess subplots and existential musings, but films that are honest, tidy, and powerful.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on either Facebook or WordPress! If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe with the widget on the right.

Posted on

What’s Next?

A few weeks ago, I posted “Reflections on High School” in which I looked back on my years as a high school student and reflected on how that large chapter of my life is coming to an end. I posted that a week before I turned eighteen–which came a week before I officially graduated. Now, a week after graduation, I look forward to what’s next in a variety of areas, from education to careers to my writing.

As I stressed in my last post, I am excited for what’s next, I really am. I have many cool opportunities ahead of me that I am eager to explore. There will be things about high school that I will miss, as I said in my last post, but it was a good chapter of my life, and it came to a good end. I don’t have any regrets. Perhaps there are some things I occasionally wish I had done differently, though whatever those decisions are, they are what’s shaped who I am today, and that’s not something I would change.

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”                      Matthew 6:34

So what is next for me? A very good question. I’m going to college–that much I know for sure. I will be attending Grove City College in the fall, and I will be majoring in history and probably working an English major or minor in there somwhere. We’ll see how that works out. College is something I’m very excited for. I’m very excited for Grove City–I’ve wanted to go there pretty much since I learned about the college, and I think it’s going to be a really great fit for me, with a lot of wonderful opportunities to explore new career paths and areas of education. I don’t know what my career will be after college–but right now I am just eighteen and that’s not something I need to decide. Tentatively I’m thinking of being a journalist, though ideally I would like to be a full-time author.

I will be focusing on my writing as much as I can while I’m in college. Of course, my schoolwork will come first. I will continue to be a dedicated student, but I’d like to continue as a writer in college which I know will be a challenge, but I hope I can do it. I’ve set realistic, tangible goals for myself that I am going to aim to accomplish.

That brings me to what is next for my writing. I have several projects planned, but mostly I will be focusing on my superhero series that I’ve been posting about for years now. That project was first conceived nearly four years ago, when I had an idea for a superhero who was a young boy and got his powers from his genetics. I honestly can’t say where that idea came from. I usually keep track of where my ideas come from but unfortunately I didn’t do that this time. Anyway, over the years that project evolved into a school project and a collaborative project, until now it has settled as an epic-length superhero saga with over 20 books planned, and I plan on releasing the first three books in 2018. My original plan was to release them all in 2017, but that’s not going to happen. They’ve taken me longer to write than I was expecting.

This series should take up the next few years of my writing career, and I really hope that this series takes off. I definitely want this to be the series that helps me establish myself as a career indie author. To do this, I have to learn to market myself as an indie author. In the next few months and years you’ll see me become much more active on social media.

Throughout all that’s happening, I’ve kept a few bible verses in mind. The first, Matthew 6:34 – “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” Though I have plans for my future, God’s plan is what I ultimately need to follow and, through prayer, I am seeking His plan in my life. Sometimes that is hard, especially when I need to recognize that my plan might not be God’s plan, and I need to change my plan. But God’s plan always works out better than anything I could ever plan.

The second verse I’ve kept in mind is this Philippians 4:6 – “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” Sometimes, thinking about college, I get anxious or worried, because I really don’t know what the future holds. But I have to remember that, again, it’s God’s plan not mine that matters, and that if I am ever worried or anxious about something, I can and need to bring that to God and lay my troubles on Him.

I would appreciate your prayers as I go out into whatever is next. I have two and a half months before I move off to Pennsylvania, months that I know are going to fly past.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on either Facebook or WordPress! If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe with the widget on the right.

Posted on

Reflections on High School

Today was my last day of high school.

For the past few weeks (months, even) people have been asking me if I am excited to be done, and that was always a hard question for me to answer. At times, I felt very, very ready to be done, but at other times I didn’t want it to end. Eventually, I decided that I am very excited to go on to what is next, but leaving is bittersweet.

Observing my fellow classmates this last day, I saw some people who clearly couldn’t wait to be done. Either they had checked out mentally long ago, or felt like they were being held back from what they wanted, or some other reason. But every bit of them wanted to be gone. There are others, I saw, who were holding onto high school with every bit of strength they had. They didn’t want it to end, and it was clearly very hard for them that there was nothing they could do to stop it ending.

I examined my own feelings and wondered which of these described me. But I realized that neither of them described me. I felt bad that I wasn’t super sad about leaving high school–did that mean I was ungrateful for the experiences I had or the friendships I’d made? But then I realized, it has to do with where I find my identity. My life is not defined by these past four years, and my life does not end now that this chapter of my story has come to a close. I have things to look forward to beyond high school, and because of that, I don’t have to be sad, or filled with uncertainty.

The end can be good.

Being a writer, I like to think in story-related metaphors. And high school has been a story, and just because this story has come to an end for me, does not mean that I need to be sad. It is bittersweet, closing this chapter and preparing to enter what is next, but I knew that I had four years, four precious years, to do what I wanted to do. And I believe that I lived these four years as best as I could. Looking back on my high school career, I have no regrets. Sure, there are things I can see that I could’ve probably done better, but that will always be the case, no matter what the situation in life. The way I’ve lived these past four years has shaped who I am today, and that is not something I want to change.

This does not mean that I’m devoid of emotions right now. As I said earlier, this is bittersweet. And when I do find myself emotional, or “sad”, it’s not the sadness of something ending unexpectedly, of something being torn away from me. It’s the sadness of realizing that I am moving on, continuing on my journey, and these wonderful memories I’ve made are now part of a closed (or nearly closed–I still haven’t graduated) chapter of my life.

High school is something I will always cherish, and something that has defined large parts of who I am. But I am excited for the new memories I will make, the new people I will meet, and the experiences in store as I move on to college and whatever is next.

As always, if you liked this post, feel to like it on either Facebook or WordPress! If you’d like to receive regular email updates from this blog’s activity, please subscribe in the field on the right.

Posted on

Update: Vigilante

In two previous blog posts (here and here), I mentioned my next project, The SUPERS Anthology. In this post I am going to give an update on how that project is going. I apologize for how sporadically I have been posting lately. I’ve been quite busy for the past few months with various school-related responsibilities, but that will start to wind down soon as graduation is in a couple of months.

I published The Ground Z Duology on Amazon in December (link to those here and here) and almost immediately after that I started work on The SUPERS Anthology. For a while, I waffled between a couple different ideas for projects, toying with the idea of doing a fantasy series or a couple of sci-fi standalones. Eventually, however, I settled on SUPERS because of its scope and long-running potential (and because I’m a total superhero geek).

SUPERS is planned as a very long series, consisting of several smaller, interconnected trilogies set in near-future America. The first of these trilogies is Vigilante, which will consist of three books: Vigilante, Changeling, and Prometheus. Vigilante follows a young man named Peter Cunningham through his sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school (each book focuses on 1 year) as he struggles to establish himself as a crime-fighting superhero in a world that views him as a criminal.

I first came up with the idea of Vigilante when I was a freshman in high school, and the main character was originally known as “Shadowhunter”. In English Class my sophomore year, we had a chance to work on a project of our choice over the course of the entire year, and I chose to work on writing “Shadowhunter”. My plan was to publish it in serial form on this blog. If you go back to posts from 2014 and early 2015 you can see some information and even an excerpt, if I remember correctly.

I didn’t end up publishing the book in serial form on the blog, though I did finish a draft of it. I was unsatisfied, however, and shelved it to finish my work on Elfson, which I published that summer. I returned to Shadowhunter about a year later when I asked a friend to co-write the series with me. For about a year, we worked together expanding the greater mythology of the series into something much bigger and grander, with an incredible scope and epic proportions, though neither of us really had time to write the actual material.

With the start of 2017, I decided that I wanted to start moving ahead on these books. My friend and I agreed that I would do the writing (or as she puts it, I decided to “pull a boy band and go all solo”) while she would remain as a creative consultant on the project. This was when I realized that there needed to be a name-change for the first series. I had become aware of the popular new television show Shadowhunters (based off the young adult fantasy series, The Mortal Instruments), and I decided that it would be impossible to market my book as long as it shared a name with something that already existed. So I settled on a new name, Vigilante, and started to churn out words as fast as I could. I normally like to outline a book in detail before I start writing it, but I haven’t done that so much with Vigilante. I have a vague outline and I outline each chapter more in-depth before I write it, but it wasn’t until halfway through the book (chapter 4-ish) that I wrote a detailed and comprehensive outline for the remainder of the book. It was nice to have the freedom to take the story where I wanted to go, but it also meant that I will have to do some heavier revision to make the earlier parts of the story fit with what happens later.

Halfway through the penultimate chapter of the novel, I realized that the story didn’t really feel complete, ending where I had ended it. I decided to expand the story, adding another conflict and a bigger climax. This will give me more time to develop the characters and their relationships.

Vigilante was originally planned as being about 45,000 words long (the approximate length of each of the Ground Z novels). However, upon outlining it, I decided it would be 60,000 words, with seven chapters. I am currently halfway through Chapter 7, and I just reached 60,000 words yesterday. However, with my expanded plot, the novel will be 11 chapters (or perhaps 12, depending on how I choose to divide it) and I am aiming for a 95K word count. I am much more satisfied with the new ending, and I am glad I added the length, because looking back, I would have left too many of the character arcs unresolved. Unfortunately this means that I won’t be able to release Vigilante as soon as I would have liked (this summer) but I think it will be worth it to put out a really quality story.

When I complete the Vigilante manuscript I will temporarily suspend working on the SUPERS Anthology in order to focus on marketing The Ground Z Duology. It’s been hard, figuring out how to best divide my time between writing, editing, and marketing, and I’ve neglected the “marketing” aspect of self-publishing for too long.

Posted on

Batman v Superman: Review

This past weekend I finally watched Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice….and I really don’t know what to think. I watched Man of Steel a couple years ago when it first came out, and I wasn’t super impressed. So I put off BvS for a long time, not wanting to be disappointed. Over the past few weeks, however, I’ve seen trailers for Wonder Woman and Justice League, and they looked promising, so I decided I’d watch BvS. I tried to go into it with an open mind.

The movie has received a lot of hate. Most reviews tend to be pretty scathing. I actually stopped reading reviews, because most of those reviews were just people ranting about how much they despised every tiny thing about the movie. I can certainly see where they were coming from. The movie was a bit incoherent when it came to the plot, and many of the choices made by the director were controversial. I’m still working through my opinions of the movie, but I’ll do my best to organize this review into a few categories, and to keep it as analytical as possible, and rant-free.

WARNING: this review will contain major spoilers, and if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want major plot points to be spoiled, read no further.

Acting/Characters

In my opinion, the acting is where the movie really shined. For the most part, the actors were fantastic.  I know many people had their doubts, but the casting for the DCEU (DC Extended Universe, similar to the Marvel universe of movies) has so far been quite good (this is my opinion, others might disagree). The characters, on the other hand, aren’t as fantastic. Rather, it’s the interpretation of the characters that is a little shaky. Many of them don’t live up to their full potential, and suffer from poor scripting and dialogue.

Henry Cavill’s performance as Superman was solid. I really enjoyed his interpretation in Man of Steel, but in this movie I wasn’t as fond of it. It wasn’t bad, but it was so dark. Superman should, in my opinion, be less angsty. But Zack Snyder’s Superman (I’ll blame the director rather than the actor) is dark, almost cruel, and selfish. Henry Cavill did, however, to bring life and humanity (ironically) to the performance, though he isn’t given much more to do than scowl and look stand there looking muscular. Superman/Clark Kent dies at the end of the movie, though he is apparently going to appear in the upcoming movie Justice League. I can only hope that they’ll redo his character a bit to be more light-hearted. Zack Snyder’s vision of Superman can only be described as a god. Divine symbolism has always been present in portrayals of Superman, but Snyder takes it to the next level. His Superman is a grim, brooding god-figure, full of wrath and utter power, dealing vengeance on those below him. Snyder appears to be trying to take a “realistic” look at what an all-powerful person would truly be like. The resulting portrayal of one of America’s most beloved characters is almost frightening. You get a sense that Superman is a force of simmering rage and divine fury, just waiting to explode. This is not how Superman should be portrayed. He stands for “truth, justice, and the American way.” That sounds an awful lot like the Captain America of the MCU–and that’s the direction I wish they had taken Superman. They could’ve created a fantastic, complex character who strives to reconcile his incredible power with his strong moral values.

I remember when Ben Affleck was cast, most everyone hated the choice. I knew nothing about Ben Affleck, and had never seen him in a movie, so I didn’t have an opinion. Since then, I’ve seen him in a couple things (The Accountant is the one I can recall off the top of my head) and I repeatedly heard that he was actually one of the best parts of the movie. I’ll admit I loved his interpretation of Bruce Wayne. I believe that it far outshone Christian Bale’s interpretation in the Nolan movies. I wasn’t as much a fan of the “Batman” persona, though in retrospect, the character is quite like the comic-book counterpart. I think we’ve just been spoiled by the Christopher Nolan Batman.

Casting Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was a stroke of genius. This was probably one of the hardest roles to cast in the DCEU as Wonder Woman has never been portrayed in a live-action movie before, and everyone has their own vision of what she should be like. I remember, years ago, I created a DCEU dream cast when only Man of Steel was out. I had actresses Emily Blunt or Eva Green in mind for the role. Gal Gadot was an incredible choice, one that I support fully. I think she was the best part of the movie, and was grossly underused. She demonstrated immense talent in her ability to put so much into so little screen-time and dialogue. Her character, though tiny in this movie, will apparently be very important for the rest of the DCEU. I’m very excited to see how they interpret her.

Amy Adams is one of my favorite actresses, and I think she is probably one of the best actresses of modern cinema. She seems wasted in the role of Lois Lane, a part that could have been played by a much less-talented actress. The role lacks complexity and though Adams clearly does her best to insert nuances into the character, but there’s only so much she can do. Her role is relegated to little more than a damsel-in-distress. Diane Lane is similarly wasted in the victim role, and is forced to deliver a painfully “comedic” line in the middle of a moment of tension. (Side note on the dialogue tone: For the most part, the dialogue in the movie isn’t bad. It avoids humor, as it should, except for a few moments where it attempts to have some Marvel-esque witty banter…and it fails. It just doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie and feels forced and clumsy).

Jesse Eisenberg is a fine actor, but I did not like him in this movie. He did a fine job, I simply personally did not care for his interpretation of Lex Luthor. Also, I was never able to quite discern what his motive was for being “evil”. Holly Hunter as the Senator was a part that could’ve shone, except for poor scripting and characterization. The actress did a fantastic job in a complex role, and I wish it had been expanded further.

Side characters are strangely missing from the story. One of the strengths of Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy was that Gotham felt like a real city. It was populated by real people, with real jobs, and real issues. Both Metropolis and Gotham feel strangely empty, vacant of anyone who isn’t essential to the plot. It seems at times that the only people in Metropolis are those who work for the Daily Bugle. Where are all the citizens of these bustling major cities? This isn’t a major issue, but it takes some of the “life” and “realism” out of the movie.

Directing

I’m still scratching my head over the choice of Zack Snyder to help the DCEU. The director is known for his dark, dramatic action blockbusters (this is the man who brought us 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch), but has little experience with franchises or complex characterization. His movie Watchmen is adapted from one of the most beloved comic books of all time, and his interpretation is intensely polarizing. I have not seen it, so I cannot offer an opinion.

Visually, I like Zack Snyder’s style. I find it intriguing and engaging, though it can be rather heavy-handed and sometimes become almost gimicky. I would have liked to see a director like Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, JJ Abrams, Alfonso Cuaron, or David Yates lead the franchise, rather than Snyder. The choices he made were risky, and I do not think they all paid off. He underused so many talented actors (Gadot, Affleck, Adams, Eisenberg) and created an awkward, bloated movie.

The biggest problem I think was that they (I don’t know exactly who “they” is, but it’s someone), tried to cram too much into one single movie. They have an entire series worth of plot points and ideas stuffed into one incredibly long movie, and it just becomes too much to handle. I would’ve liked to see a complete Superman trilogy, followed by a Batman movie, followed by a Justice League movie, followed by other standalones.

I think that if Zack Snyder had gone all in, making the DCEU completely his own, given complete creative control over everything, he could have made a good movie series. I’m looking back at some of the actors Snyder has worked with before, and pulling from that list he could have created a very interesting and unique comic book universe. (For instance, Gerard Butler as Batman, Eva Green or Carla Gugino as Wonder Woman, Jon Hamm as Superman). Such a movie would be epic in scope and plot, and probably a bit overwhelming, but it would certainly be a spectacle.

With good writers and good producers, Zack Snyder is still a good man to have for the job. They can certainly make it work. I would like to see him remain on as a producer for upcoming movies, though I would be interested in seeing them pull in other directors (like some I mentioned above) for future movies.

Visuals/Design/Symbolism

The Marvel movies have set the tone for superhero movies: fun, bright colors, and “happy” visuals. Zack Snyder goes in the complete opposite direction. This movie is all darkness, grimness, and grit. It’s a story of “gods and monsters”, baroque and dramatic, depressing and dark.

The visuals are overflowing with religious symbolism to the point of being superfluous. Superman’s role as a Christ-figure is taken to the extreme. All subtlety is removed as Zack Snyder beats the viewers over the head with the imagery and symbolism. This culminates in the final Armageddon-like battle in which Superman only defeats the enemy, “Doomsday”, by allowing himself to be killed. The final shot of the movie then implies that Superman might be coming back.

Ignore the plot issues that go along with the visuals, if you look at the visuals alone, they are stunning. Every shot is gorgeously composed, with breathtaking cinematography, and a wonderful color palette. Much of the movie is very visually dark, but I have to admit that it looks really cool. 

Sometimes, you get a sense that the director is going too much for that moment of “coolness” in a scene, rather than furthering the plot, so it creates a dilemma–the movie looks awesome, but at what cost?

For instance, the opening shots of the movie are a re-hash of Batman’s origins, with the death of his parents. The shots of his parents dying are morbidly beautiful, done in Snyder’s characteristic slow-motion, mixed with shots of their funeral. A visually breathtaking and emotionally impactful scene, it later transforms into a bizarre dream sequence (one of several in the movie), which removes some of the impact of the original opening shots.

The costume-design and overall look of the characters is very good. I enjoyed the new Superman suit, which featured some subtle changes from the last movie, and I really loved the Batman look. The costume was all cloth, rather than the armor-based designs of the Christopher Nolan movies, which really highlighted Ben Affleck’s bulky physique. Also, the Wonder Woman costume was a very interesting, modern take on the classic Wonder Woman outfit. There were hints of the traditional red-white-and-blue, but it was subtle, darker, and more subdued, suggesting age and use.

Plot

This is where the film falls apart into a smoking heap, or rather, it collapses under the weight of the plot it tries to carry. There is so much going on that it is impossible for there to be a cohesive narrative. The plot is completely incoherent, jumping from subplot to subplot, with hardly any connecting thread. At nearly three hours, the movie has the potential to have a long, complicated, but epic story. It simply doesn’t. At all. It is convoluted, confusing, and uninteresting. Inserted in the movie is what is basically a trailer for Justice League. It feels misplaced and the movie would not suffer from it having been removed–indeed, the movie would benefit from its removal.

The movie culminates in two massive, epic battles that are admittedly quite satisfying from a plot-and-conflict standpoint, but the movie nevertheless suffers from one of the cardinal sins of storytelling: payoff without setup. You have this massive climax, but nothing leading up to it, resulting in an awkward, unbalanced story. The battle itself was big, smoky, “gods and monsters”, but the greater conflict was small. Even though, at one point, a bomb destroys the US Capitol, I never felt like the stakes were high. A movie this epic and this long needs to have high stakes. This is a basic story issue that many blockbuster movies face. When everyone knows that these characters are going to be appearing in the sequels, those in charge of the story need to try extra hard to raise the stakes so that those watching the movie will believe that the characters are actually in danger. I never felt that the characters were in danger. Even though Superman literally dies at the end, I never experienced an emotional response.

Final Impressions

This movie attempts to do far too much. It acts as a sequel to Man of Steel, an introduction for Batman, and a trailer for Justice League. And it crumples under the weight of it all. Warner Bros (the studio behind the DCEU movies) should have produced a direct sequel to Man of Steel or even a solo Batman movie before attempting to bring the characters together. The movie that results is so stuffed with subplots and “extra” that what’s really important is lost in the bloated mess.

Many reviewers have said that the DCEU is dead. I don’t think it is. I think that it will continue to make a lot of money. I don’t know if it will put out any good stories. I have high hopes for Wonder Woman, and I am cautiously optimistic about Justice League. I think that with the right directors and writers, this franchise could be very good. We’ll have to wait and see.

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is not a good movie. But, it is an ambitious and a visionary one. It is a beautiful, bloated, staggering, stunning, incoherent mess of a movie. I’m glad I watched it, because I can’t stop thinking about it, but I am sad for what could have been, and for the missed opportunities.