BVS

I just got home from seeing Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice...

I didn't like it...

At all...

But I wanted to so bad.

The problem with the movie was that it wasn't a horrible movie. It was so middling that it made me so goddamn frustrated thus why I hated it so much. It had really cool and interesting parts but also really stupid and unnecessary parts. 

I'm probably going to spoil a lot of the plot but who cares.

THE GOOD

- Ben Affleck. I thought he was a great Batman. Tortured, dark and brutal. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing him in solo films. 

- Gal Gadot. She was awesome. Probably the best part of the movie. Especially when she was introduced in the final fight against Doomsday. 

- Jess Eisenberg. A lot of people gave him shit about playing Lex Luther. He's not the macho brute that Lex is usually portrayed as, but instead, he was smart, conniving and insane. I thought he was great. 

- Zack Snyder. Let's get one thing straight here. A lot of people give Zack Snyder shit about his films. But just stop. He is a great director. Everything looked great in the film. The opening scene (showing Bruce Wayne losing his parents in Crime Alley) was awesome. The fights were awesome. Special effects - awesome. He also (like in Watchmen and 300) knows how to make a movie look like you're watching a live action comic book - which I find very impressive. The problem does not lie with the direction but in the writing. The character arcs were lazy. The plot had many holes. And some of the dialogue was just stupid. Get some better writers for Snyder and he'll take the rest.

THE BAD

-  A weird scene with the Flash (maybe). There's an extremely unclear scene where a mysterious man in a red suit surrounded by lightning comes to the Batcave to tell Bruce information about Superman. But this information is never used later in the film and is completely pointless. 

- Pinning Batman and Superman against each other. Lex Luther is trying to get Batman and Superman to fight. But why? How? What? Yeah, none of those questions seem to be clear in the movie.

- Lois Lane retrieving the Kryptonite spear. Batman makes a spear of Kryptonite in order to defeat Superman. But after Batman and Superman realize that they’re not enemies, Batman throws the spear away in anger. Later, when Doomsday shows up, Batman realizes that he needs to get the spear back. But Lois is already on it. She’s already on her way to retrieve the spear. How she knows that the spear will help? I don’t know. It seemed like the writers just thought she needed more screen time.

- Superman's dumb death at the end. In the final battle, Superman must plunge the Kryptonite spear into Doomsday in order to kill him. Because Superman is weak against Kryptonite, he obviously can't carry the spear for very long periods of time. Nevertheless, instead of giving it to the super-powered Amazonian warrior woman who is clearly adept at all kinds of combat and basically invulnerable, or Batman who is also completely capable, Superman decides to charge at Doomsday to impale him with it and dies in the process. It's a completely avoidable death, and one that Superman will undoubtedly be resurrected from in the first Justice League movie.

THE UGLY

- Doomsday. He was pretty ugly.

- The future of DC movies...

Dialogue-Heavy Films are Movies Too

Through my almost three and half years in Park, I've been told over and over again that film is a VISUAL medium, and that it should be treated as such when you're writing a script. For the most part, I would agree with this: when at all possible, you should tell a story visually instead of spelling something out with pointless, expository dialogue. Let the viewer figure stuff out for themselves instead of having characters broadcast it. I get it. That's all good.

So my question is, after watching something like the fantastic "The End of the Tour," how can movies consisting of mostly dialogue be compelling? End of the Tour follows Rolling Stone columnist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) as he goes about interviewing David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel, in an uncharacteristically good role) during the last stop of his book tour for the novel Infinite Jest.

And that's pretty much all there is to it.

Nobody dies (I mean, teeeeechnically DFW does in the intro, but it's barely part of the plot). There's no big twists or turns. At times, it can seem like there's barely any conflict. Just two dudes named David, talking about everything from sex to junk food. So where's the hook? What's the elevator pitch there? If I had tried to write something like this for my advanced screenwriting class, I probably would have been immediately shut down. It didn't help when I discovered that the writer was Donald Margulies, a guy that normally writes plays (albeit, really great, compelling plays). Then THAT got me thinking: what's the difference between a play and a film? Is a play also not a visual medium? Why is ok for a play to be talky, but not a movie?

Turns out, even though they're visual, stage plays are a different creature altogether, mainly for some obvious reasons. Plays don't have cameras, for one: they work with a single stage, and whatever you see is going to be determined by your place in the audience and your particular view of that stage. Many times, all you'll be able to work with is a couple actors and a bare bones set, so compelling dialogue is the one thing that you have to really focus on.

Sometimes, this can be translated over into film. Take Glengarry Glen Ross, for instance. It's a super talk-y movie, one of those films that I would have absolutely hated as a kid, but it's compelling, and it's adapted for the screen from what was originally a stage play. If you're able to translate the intensity and keep the dialogue tight and interest-keeping, then you're set.

And that's more or less what Margulies is able to do with End of the Tour. He takes a book about a long conversation and turns it into a movie about a long conversation. I'd like to say that framing and shots help the movie stay interesting as well, but from a technical standpoint, it's fairly average and forgettable (apart from this one shot in a parking lot that makes the physically imposing Wallace look like a child). Sure, you can go the route of David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin in the Social Network and also make it super visually appealing, but you also, surprisingly enough, don't need to. Sometimes a good script is a good script, and musings about masturbation, Alanis Morissette, and television are all you need. Which is kind of both inspiring and strangely depressing. Oh well. I guess that's David Foster Wallace for you.

Adventureland

I've always been a fan of the coming-of-age story. Perhaps it's because I'm at a pivotal and transitional point in my life, but it seems like these types of films usually strike some sort of chord with me. Some of my favorite films fit this mold, such as this summer's indie hit, "The Way, Way Back". I was doing some research the other night about the best films that stream on Netflix, and the film "Adventureland" crossed my radar. The film tells the story of a recent college grad in 1987 who takes a job at an amusement park after his plans for the future are cut short. The plot seemed intriguing enough, and it seemed to get pretty good reviews, so I thought I'd give it a gander.

To be totally honest, I was a little hesitant to watch the film. I remember, back in '09 when the movie was first released, being extremely underwhelmed with the trailer. After an initial cursory glance, it seemed extremely superficial, another "teen movie" with crude language and explicit content. Although the film did show some of these characteristics, it was actually quite endearing. I feel like anyone who has had to work a crappy summer job found the film relatable, in a bitter-sweet, nostalgic kind of way. The writing was clever, but not so much that it digressed from the progression of the script.

I was pleasantly surprised about the cast of "Adventureland". Although it had a strong cast, which included Ryan Reynolds and SNL favorites Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig, I was a little skeptical about

the two leads, played by Jesse Eisenberg and Kristin Stewart. Perhaps unfairly, I've largely thought of Stewart as a talentless actor, who starred in equally as awful series of trashy films. I've thought of Eisenberg as a Michael Cera type who was good in "The Social Network", but had an acting style that lacked a certain amount of depth and range. However, I couldn't have been any more surprised. I found Stewart actually pretty cute. She does a great job as the role of Em, and handles the part, an extremely emotional part at that, with finesse. Eisenberg does a good job as well, playing a believable and relatable character, where I wouldn't have expected relatability. Together, the two leads had great chemistry together, and drove the story forward.

I was also surprised to see a familiar face amongst the cast, a certain Martin Starr, who played a freak on Joss Whedon's cult hit, "Freaks and Geeks". I really enjoy movies where I can recognize an actor I kind of know, and am able to say,"Oh, I know that guy". This was one of those movies.

Overall, "Adventureland" is a great hybrid between romance and coming-of-age comedy; a worthwhile watch for any person.

The living Wake

Over thanksgiving break I had the opportunity to watch to watch an indi-film starring Jesse Eisenberg. It was very witty and clever and made it to my favorites list at number 35. The story is about a man who is dying of an incurable name-less disease and and his doctor tells him the very specific time for him to die. The story is set on his last day on earth. He sets out to find the answer to why his father left him and his mother when he was very young and he later finds his father and he tells him all the resolving facts to the story and brings him to his death. The story certainly keeps you intrigued and interested while taking you on a journey to see the last day of his life and the sadness of his only friend as he carries him to his grave most literally. The story weighs heavily on its characters and their development.

Zombieland

Zombieland, directed by Ruben Fleischer is about Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) a very shy kid who is just trying to get back to his family in Ohio to see if they are still alive because of the brutal attacks by the zombies. In his travels he meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a man who hates zombies. He accepts a ride from him to Columbus. They become hungry so they decide to break into an abandoned grocery store. At the store they fight off three zombies and bump into two teenage girls,Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The younger girl has been bitten by one of the zombies and begs for them the kill her.When they find out that she really isn't infested they all stick together on their journey to an amusement park in Los Angeles that they heard was zombie-free. On the way they continue using Columbus' rules
to defeat zombies. Will he find his family? You need to watch and find out!

This movie is a great movie about zombies because they explain what is happening in their world which is very helpful since zombie attacks haven't been proven to be real. I like the way that Columbus tells us the rules when he performs them so we know exactly what to do. I also thought that the cinematography was very well done. Ruben did a great job telling the story and I would highly recommend this movie.


References:
Hare Trigger (1945), All About Eve (1950), "Wanted: Dead or Alive" (1958), For a Few Dollars More (1965), Deliverance (1972), Star Wars (1977), "The Incredible Hulk" (1978), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Caddyshack (1980), "Cheers" (1982),Scrooged (1988),What About Bob? (1991), Babe (1995), Kingpin (1996),Anaconda (1997),Titanic (1997),Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), "Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1" (2000), Garfield (2004), "Robot Chicken" (2005), "Hannah Montana" (2006), 2012 (2009/I)