Dissecting a Well Filmed Fight Scene

It will be an understatement to say that fight scenes can make or break an action movie. A well framed fight sequence can have a great emotional impact without being confusing, or disjointed. While Captain America: Civil War is overall an enjoyable movie, there are some action scenes that are marred by the infamous shaky-cam effect. This technique has been used effectively in the Bourne movies, but that’s as far as it goes. Most of the time, we get a mangled, hardly discernible fight scene. Examples of the blatant misuse of this effect can be found here.

One of the reasons this shaky-cam effect is used is to hide the actor’s lack of martial arts background. It’s hard to tell if the actor is moving effectively when the audience could hardly see the action. In a sense, it is an understandable sleight-of-hand, but when it is used on actors who can pull of those moves, it usually turn out to be a massive disappointment, like this Jason Statham fight scene.

I might be biased, seeing that I am Chinese and I grew up watching old kung fu movies, but the Chinese movie industry has nailed how to properly film a fight scene for decades. This is mostly due to the fact that back in those days, there are no shortage of actors and choreographers with martial arts training. Some of the trademark signs of Chinese fight scenes are:

1. A focus on the movements of the actors. Most of the time, they know what they are doing and they can move beautifully.
2. The choreography. Sometimes it’s a hand-to-hand fight, sometimes props are involved. If it’s the latter, it’s usually for comedic or aesthetic effect, and the fight itself tells a story.
3. A steady camera view to support points 1 and 2. The actors can perform the stunts, the choreography is usually good, so there is nothing to hide and no reason to move the camera at all. They want the audience to get a good view.

To illustrate the points above, I present this fight scene from the movie ‘Eight Diagram Pole Fighter’. A bit of a background is required here; ‘eight diagram’ here is referring to the bagua, a traditional Chinese religious symbol. Also, the protagonist is the student, i.e. the clean-shaven guy played by Gordon Liu. The bearded, older man (Philip Ko Fei) with a red sash across his chest is the master.

For point 1, both actors are an accomplished martial artists, evident in their fluid movements and steady feet. At the 0:45 mark, we get a wide view shot showing both the fighters and the hall they are in, and this sets the background for the action.

Throughout most of the fight, we get a view of both the fighters, at least their upper bodies. Note the distinct lack of shakiness or blurriness. A few shots of their feet were slotted in here and there to highlight their nimbleness and footwork, but nothing too disruptive because after all, they are pole users and the focus is still on what they do with their poles. At 1:43, we get a few angles of the same posture because this was to be one of the highlights of the fight. When necessary, the obligatory slow motion was used, such as the sequence between 2:07 and 2:20 marks.

Now, the choreography. Here, Gordon Liu’s character is fighting his master over a clash in ideology. It was not supposed to be a fight to the death. My guess is that’s the reason for these clamping moves at 1:56 and 2:04; they are a symbol of the master’s hold over the student, an attempt to restrain the latter’s will. At 3:08, we have role reversal, in which Gordon Liu clamped the Ko Fei’s pole. That was a sign that the student is beginning to overwhelm the master. Sure enough, the master loses his shoes soon after, a symbolic humiliation.

Finally, at 3:37, where the fight has effectively ended, we see the whole point of all the props – cushions, candle holders – they used: a diagram of the bagua is formed.

So much satisfaction.

 

 

The Huntsman: Winter’s War – Wasted Potential

(Spoiler alert: The plot of the movie will be discussed in detail, so please do not read this before watching. Not that there is much to spoil, though.)

The Huntsman: Winter’s War is a wonderful counter-example of how an all white cast of superstars can still fail to impress. It is mindboggling how a movie starring Emily Blunt, Jessica Chastain, Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron could fall so flat. We’re talking about one Oscar win and three nominations, three Golden Globe wins and six nominations, as well as six BAFTA nominations between the ladies… and then we have Thor. Surely we can’t go wrong with that?

The problem is that the storyline is an appalling mess. The first part of the movie (the prequel) is about the relationship between Ravenna and Freya. Ravenna, a powerful sorceress, has the ambition to rule and she is not beneath murder to achieve it. Freya, on the other hand, respected and revered her sister. Without magical powers, she seemed contented with her rather domestic ambition to start a family with her lover. Tragedy struck and Freya’s hidden ice powers surfaced.

It was here that the story shifted its focus to Freya. Still tormented by the loss of her baby, Freya had children kidnapped from their families in a demented obsession to ‘free’ them from the pain of love. The children were then trained in combat and grew up to be the titular Huntsmen. Eric and Sara were her two best Huntsmen, and predictably, they fell in love.

The love story was supposed to drive the story, but it was unconvincing at best. Sure, they grew up together, but it was in a strict environment that hardly left space for feelings. It is going to take more than just a few lines and two brief scenes of them together to convince us that it is a love worth dying for. To make matters worse, the lovers were almost immediately separated, and then we were told that the events of the previous movie have taken place and the whole focus shifts to Eric and his companions’ quest to retrieve Ravenna’s magical mirror. All in the space of minutes. Poor dude didn’t even get to mourn his loss on screen.

The writers should have worked with what they already have, because from then on, the story got increasingly jumbled. We have some detective work, the reappearance of Sara, they met more dwarves, a random fight scene with monsters, unresolved misunderstanding between Eric and Sara, romance subplot among the dwarves, Ravenna got resurrected, and some bad CGI. It was as if the movie could not decide if it wanted to be a heist movie, Frozen, Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings.

I would argue that the focus of the movie should have been Freya, and to a certain degree, the other women in the story. The women’s stories were the only aspect of the movie that I enjoyed. The dynamics of Freya and Ravenna’s relationship was interesting, especially when contrasted with the bland relationship between Eric and Sara. I was captivated with how Ravenna, true to her character, immediately assumed command the moment she returned and we could see Freya’s bubbling rage at having to play second fiddle again. Furthermore, Ravenna could tell Freya was unhappy, but in her mind, Freya was still the little sister she could manipulate. She was unaware, or just didn’t care, that Freya has changed. Compelling character developments; ones that I wished they had focused on.

You see, with Freya and Ravenna, we could have had a gripping story about two powerful sorceresses in a devastating rivalry. We could have a movie about Freya, who after years of being in Ravenna’s shadow, is unwilling to let go of everything she has amassed for herself. It could have the two sisters, with their contrasting ideologies, fight for what they believe they deserve. Freya, with her delusion that kidnapping children was the right thing to do, would give us compelling drama when she realized how wrong she had been, and channeled her fury at her sister.

Unfortunately, we were stuck with Eric, who had the personality of a rock. It wasn’t the first time that interesting female characters get sidelined in favour of a dull male character. Even Sara had a better story waiting to be told, about the years she spent being separated from Eric – she was physically and emotionally scarred, so whatever happened must have been tragic. In addition, the female dwarf Bromwyn was a character more complex than all of the males combined. She was a resourceful treasure hunter, and she did not need rescuing of any sort (if anything, she was the one doing the rescuing). She knew what she wanted and had no qualms working towards her goal. Definitely someone I would want to spend more time watching, rather than the male dwarves making tasteless sexist jokes.

Tragically, what we got was Eric grinning stupidly at us for a large percentage of the movie, and we will just have to live with the what-ifs.

Movie Review: The Jungle Book

The Jungle Book is a story that most of us are already familiar with. The life action/CGI remake of the Disney classic is about a boy named Mowgli (played by child actor Neel Sethi) being raised by a pack of wolves, and trouble comes when Shere Khan (Idris Elba), a menacing tiger, considers Mowgli an enemy. To avoid bringing trouble to his pack, Mowgli decided to leave and journey to the nearest human village, where he supposedly belong to.

This could have been a very interesting movie examining the dynamics of the relationship between humans and animals, as well as the question of nature vs. nurture. At the very least, it should be fun. Unfortunately, the episodic nature of the storyline made the movie draggy and disjointed.

Making matters worse was Neel Sethi’s inconsistent performance. Sure, he nailed it at times, but for most of the movie, I was never convinced he is Mowgli. It didn’t help that Mowgli, as the protagonist and the only speaking human, came off as rather whiny at times. After the millionth time of hearing him complain about not wanting to leave the jungle, I was beginning to think that Shere Khan might be right after all.

I suppose that right now it sounds as if I do not like the movie, but that’s not quite the case. The movie is saved by brilliant voice acting, where each of the talking animals seemed more likable than Mowgli. I especially enjoyed Ben Kingsley’s stand-out performance as Bagheera the panther. Idris Elba, as usual, is ever reliable, channeling much malice and ferocity. Between Zootopia, Finding Dory and Bastille Day, it’s good to see that Idris Elba is having a productive year. The rest of the cast – Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong’o, Bill Murray and Giancarlo Esposito – were great as well, holding the movie together when Sethi failed to do so.

The CGI is good, although in some scenes it was quite easy to tell that they cut some corners. My favourite scene involved the first appearance of the elephants, where they emerged from the mist. It was easy to see why Bagheera revered them; you too, will get the sense that these creatures are not quite of this world.

In the end, the movie is alright. It could have been great, but considering that this is Sethi’s first appearance on the big screen, I could cut him some slack. After all, it’s not everyday that a non-white actor gets the role of an Asian character. There might be a sequel coming up, but you can bet that I’ll be more excited to see Bagheera than Mowgli.

One final note: I watched this in a crowded theater, filled with parents and kids. I personally do not think this movie is suitable for young kids, judging from how restless they got. Most of the issues discussed were probably too deep for most kids below seven years old. Therefore, the movie will fail to hold a kid’s attention during the duller moments.

The Huntsman: Winter’s War

Evil Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) has an innocent sister, Freya (Emily Blunt), who believed in love. After a tragic betrayal in which she lost her baby, Freya’s dormant ice powers surfaced and she became the Ice Queen. To compensate for the loss of her daughter, she had children kidnapped from their families, and trained them as her Huntsmen. Two of her Huntsmen, Eric and Sara (Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain), fell in love, only to be separated by the bitter Freya. When Ravenna is resurrected, it is up to the heroes to save the day.

In theory, the movie could have been a critical success, boasting a star-studded cast. Unfortunately, the script couldn’t live up to its potential. One critic called it a mash up of Frozen, Brave and Narnia, and I agree. The plot is paper-thin, and barely coherent. The biggest problem was that it was both a prequel and a sequel to the first Huntsman movie. Despite some great acting, mostly by Emily Blunt, the movie failed to move me beyond casual indifference to the fate of any of the characters. The only time I felt compelled to pay attention was when Ravenna and Freya interacted with each other. They should have just based the story on the two sisters instead.

I went into the cinema with low expectations, because let’s admit it, the trailer itself doesn’t stand out to begin with. Yet, even with my low expectations, I was disappointed. The pacing was poor, with what little action we had interspersed with long periods of characters talking to each other. Worse, there were hardly any chemistry going on between Eric and Sara.

The action was just so-so. In the trailer, we are treated to some glimpses of epic battles and cool, albeit generic, fight scenes. Unfortunately, what you see in the trailer is pretty much all that you will get in the movie itself. Even the supposedly epic final confrontation turned out to be lackluster and disappointing. It felt like the action director/choreographer has used up all his or her best ideas early on and ran out of steam.

Another aspect that I like about the movie is the costume designs for the Queens, particularly Freya’s. Perhaps it’s partly due to Emily Blunt’s strong screen presence, but I had a hard time taking my eyes off the screen whenever she appears. From her chain-metal cloak to her icy-owl mask and her beautiful silver hair, she was a sight to behold. Ravenna was alluring, regal and seductive, thanks to Charlize Theron’s effective portrayal of the character. Unfortunately, these solid performances from these two accomplished actresses could not save the bland storyline.

Game Review: Type:Rider

[Spoiler alert for spoilers, as far as a game without storyline can be spoiled. However, there are some pleasant surprises in the form of the content and design of the game, which will be discussed openly here.]

There really isn’t much to say about this game, to be honest. If I have to describe Type Rider in a sentence, it will be ‘a lesson in typography in the form of a game’. Yes, Type Rider is a game about fonts. As bizarre as it sounds, the game is surprisingly enjoyable.

The gameplay is as simple as it gets. There are ten chapters, each representing a font. You control two dots (it’s actually a colon symbol lying on its side) and navigate it through a series of obstacles, while collecting each letter of the alphabet. Additionally, there are also asterisks to be collected, where each asterisk unlocks information in the book detailing an aspect of typography, be it the key figures or the instruments involved.

Now, the fun part of the game lies in its creativity and its aesthetics. The gameplay might not sound outstanding, but the obstacles themselves are very entertaining in their in various forms. Certain segments will require good timing, while others might need you to solve some Rube-Goldberg-ish puzzles. For example, in one of the earlier chapters, you have to avoid some sharp thorns, whereas in a later chapter, you have to evade gunshots. There was a section in which popular games like Pong and Tetris are a part of the obstacles. It was a good tribute; I admit to feeling nostalgic there.

The fact that the obstacles are designed to represent the era of a particular font is a plus point, because it leads to gorgeous backgrounds like these:

Other than looking nice, the different background designs are crucial in making each chapter stand out. For example, the font Futura gets a fitting retro design that is worked into the gameplay itself. Helvetica, on the other hand, is presented on a snowy landscape. The differences might seem like a trivial aspect, but they help us to remember the essence of each font, so the amount of thought put into it should be appreciated.

On top of that, the background music also helps to put you into the right mood for each chapter. In Gothic, where the focus is on monk scribes, the music is solemn and haunting. 17^th and 18^th century Didot gets lighter, flute-like quality background music, reminiscent of sunshine and gardens, while Clarendon, with its heavy twangs, immediately evokes images of cowboys and the Wild West. Tastefully done.

Unfortunately, this game is not without its frustrating points. For one, the information obtained from collecting asterisks is presented in the form of long, bland paragraphs. After all the effort that went into making each stage memorable, this is disappointing. In fact, even though I am an avid reader, I barely remember half of the information presented there; the dull, textbook-like tone of the writing failed to make an impact. Why not have it written in the spirit of the font, as with the background art? Maybe Old English for the Gothic chapter might be pushing it, but it will probably be better than the current format of ‘In year XXXX, so-and-so created this font and he uses machine ABC for printing’.

My personal grouses will mostly involve my own shortcomings; I did find the game challenging at certain sections, where took me quite a few attempts to get through. Despite liking the music, it is irritating to keep hearing the same few notes get repeated with every retry (a problem that can be easily solved).

Overall, the game is pretty satisfactory. Boredom was not a factor with the wonderful background art and the well-designed obstacles. It’s definitely not the most exciting game around, but it’s worth a try for those who are interested to just bounce around collecting items.

Revisiting Hitman: Agent 47, and its flaws

Hitman: Agent 47 was one of the movie adaptations that were considered to be a disappointment to the fans. One of the biggest criticisms directed at the movie was the fact that it was not done in the spirit of the game. Now, I have never played the game, but I do know that it is a stealth game involving an assassin whose existence cannot be proven; he is like a ghost. Therefore, when the Hitman: Agent 47 movie was made to resemble a rather typical action movie, an opportunity to make a movie that stood out was lost.

Don’t get me wrong; I liked the movie despite its flaws. The acting and action were decent, with bits of interesting parts here and there. It wasn’t terrible, in my opinion. It’s just that it’s an adaptation of a popular game with an interesting premise, and the movie could have been elevated to the next level, had more thought been put into writing the story. In this article, I will discuss the weaknesses of the storyline in relation to the spirit of the game, and some changes that could improved the movie. Remember, the point of the game is to be stealthy.

Let’s start with the scene that you can see in the trailer. Here, we see Agent 47 getting apprehended at a security checkpoint because he walked in with guns on him. In the movie, his target Katia van Dees was held in the embassy building. Agent 47’s plan involved getting himself arrested, chained to the interrogation table, and through some convenient plot setup, frees himself and masqueraded as one of the security personnel of the building. Look, it was supposed to make Agent 47 look cool (and I admit, it does), but his actions doesn’t make sense in the context of the game.

For starters, he was supposed to be a hidden, silent assassin. That was what made him so formidable. Exposing himself like this is not only uncharacteristic, it made everything more complicated. I am confident he would have freed himself one way or another, but why even get arrested? Why not silently infiltrate the building? This is especially in light of the beginning of the film, where he demonstrated phenomenal skills and intelligence against a more organized team in a more secure facility, so we have no reason to believe that the embassy will be an obstacle to him. He was also aided by the fact that the embassy officer doubted Katia’s testimony (and sanity), on the account that there was no proof of his existence. He could have just sneaked into the building, put on a uniform, avoid or disable the cameras, avoid being seen, and find Katia. It could have been a thrilling sequence that confirms his capabilities to remain in the shadows, with the bonus fact that if he pulls this off, Katia’s disappearance or any resulting casualty will be blamed on Katia. In other words, he could have gotten his target while remaining invisible.

Another example of baffling decisions made by Agent 47 was the scene in the subway, where he followed Katia to a crowded train station. Now a crowded location could have been a good place to blend in. Instead, he stood out like a sore thumb, and even fired some shots in public. If people didn’t notice him before this, well, now they do! More tragic was the fact that he achieved nothing by doing that, unless his aim was to have his face plastered all over the news as a terrorist. A more logical way to go about it will be, in my opinion, to blend in with the crowd and use them as a cover to get closer to Katia. Katia might have heightened sensory perceptions and will know he’s coming anyway, but it just means that all the more, he should be approaching her as inconspicuously as possible.

“But John Smith was there!” Sure, John Smith kind of forced his hand, but it is still no excuse to saunter in like he owned the place. In fact, John Smith had nothing to lose by engaging him in a public place, since his identity is not at the level of secrecy that Agent 47 operates in. Therefore, it would have been better if 47 tried to blend in and shadow his targets secretly, and avoid fighting John Smith until he can do so at a more convenient location. I would expect a good assassin to know when to fall back and have a Plan B.

All is not lost. There were certain parts where the stealth factor comes in. One of those parts was the segment where Syndicate agents tracked Katia and 47 to the factory they were hiding in; you do get glimpses of how 47 uses stealth against the enemies. It wasn’t much, but it was enough to give us some ideas. Another scene, which utilizes the theme in a more major way, was the part where Katia was made to navigate her way through Singapore’s Changi airport undetected. It was one of the highlights of the movie, in my opinion, not just because it was in line with the objectives of the game, but it also showed the importance of strategy and planning. We could certainly do with more scenes like this. (It is worth mentioning that ironically, the movie told us that what made the agents great weren’t their physical strengths, but their intelligence.)

Another detail that bugged me was the fact that the car Agent 47 used in Singapore was a bright red sports car. Look, a sports car is attention grabbing, all the more a red one. It’s hardly a car one would choose if you want to remain unnoticed. Now it might be a small detail, but it’s jarring because it feels like the choice of the vehicle defeats the entire purpose of Katia taking such pains to avoid detection in the airport. In fact, I was surprised that it took the Syndicate agents so long to locate them, because if they had just bothered to ask around about a red sports car, Katia and Agent 47 would have been found immediately. But then again, the Syndicate is probably one of the most inept organizations ever, which brings me to the next point.

We were supposed to fear the Syndicate, since they were purportedly highly trained, with unlimited resources. Yet throughout the movie, I got the feeling that they never stood a chance against the protagonists. Part of this was hinged on the fact that they had the information required to find Dr. Litvenko, but failed to locate him. When they presented the information to Katia, she deduced his location in matter of minutes, through some very basic elimination techniques. It was supposed to highlight Katia’s intelligence, but given how easily she cracked the puzzle, it convinced me that the Syndicate was just terribly incompetent instead.

It was hilarious, when you think about it. Katia was reunited with Dr. Litvenko in Singapore, where the latter was just sitting out in the open admiring flowers (he likes orchids) in one of the most flowery places in Singapore. It seemed to be part of his daily routine, and you start to wonder, “Why did the Syndicate have such a hard time finding him? He wasn’t even actively hiding!” Someone who indulges in his hobbies and interests while he was supposed to be in hiding couldn’t be that hard to locate.

Further proof of their incompetence can be seen in the underground carpark chase scene, where Agent 47 was trying to escape with Katia and Dr. Litvenko in the sports car. The vehicles chosen by the Syndicate members were motorcycles and a car. Now, motorcycles might have been a good choice in the streets, where there might be tight spaces or alternative routes that they need to squeeze through in the pursuit. Unfortunately, the chase took place in a relatively spacious carpark. This means that not only the motorcyclists had no advantages, they were unprotected against bullets and collisions (seriously, what’s stopping 47 from running them over?). Predictably, they weren’t of much use against Agent 47.             

Out in the streets, Agent 47 was finally stopped at an intersection when the car got anchored (around the 1:08 mark in the trailer). Now, this was probably a good move, because that had Agent 47 and company cornered. It’s time for the Syndicate forces to move in, which they did so… by ziplining down from nearby buildings? Even when I watched the trailer, I have already thought about how it could go wrong. For starters, they are travelling in fixed trajectories, unprotected against a very skilled marksman, at the mercy of gravity. All dead before reaching the ground. Seriously, who came up with these strategies?! The Syndicate had Agent 47 trapped, and they obviously have the area under their control. Sure, you don’t want to harm Litvenko, but why not use snipers? Or at least send in ground troops, where they can duck for cover, or move a little more unpredictably. I get the feeling that the Syndicate fell more out of their own shortcomings than Agent 47 or Katia’s brilliance, and that was unfortunate, because it could have been a very engaging movie if both sides were more evenly matched. In fact, the closest that the Syndicate came to surprising Agent 47 was when they hired random mercenaries to attack him in the hotel.

Despite its shortcomings, the movie wasn’t terrible in my opinion, as long as you don’t put too much hope into the plot or the character developments. It was truly unfortunate that the plot did not receive as much love as it should from the writers and the producers, because it has the potential to be a good tribute to the game rather than another mindless action movie. Source materials should be respected whenever possible, after all (I am looking at you, Michael Bay).

P.S. I was told that the latest Hitman game has just been released recently after I started writing this article, so great timing! Happy gaming to those who are playing!

Batman vs. Superman: What went wrong

(This is an analysis of what went wrong with the movie, so spoiler alert, of course.)

So, I watched Batman vs. Superman, despite all the negative reviews. Here’s my opinion: I didn’t like it. Now, before any of you BvS fans start getting angry at me, hear me out. If you like the movie, sure, good for you. I’m glad you enjoyed it. I tried to like it, but I didn’t, and here, I’ll explain why.

My biggest problems with the movie are the storytelling and the poorly thought out plot. I watch a movie to be moved by the story, to grow attached to the characters, and to be wowed by the action. Let’s just say, none of that happened. “But it’s an action movie! Don’t think too much about the plot!” you might say. Well, there are plenty of action movies out there that are well written and engage the audience such that they ask for more. I was bored before the ‘big fight’ between the titular characters start, and it’s hard to care about the fight when you are not emotionally invested in the characters.

Anyway, like I said, storytelling. A lot of times, the film jumps from one scene to another without thought about how it will disrupt the pacing of the film or the attention of the moviegoers. The most jarring of all was, for me, the part where Bruce Wayne was decrypting the information he had stolen, and then suddenly we were transported to the middle of the desert. The switch was sudden, but worse was the fact that it felt as if I was watching another movie altogether. Who were those people? Who’s doing the shooting, and who’s getting shot at? Where did those soldiers with wings come from? Am I supposed to care? And suddenly, BAM! Batman was caught, and an angry Superman stormed in and… all of which turned out to be a dream?

Then right after that, we had another sequence in which The Flash tried to give Batman some warning about Lois Lane bla bla bla… I was still recovering from the desert scene, and I had no time to really process what it was about. I suppose it was in line with some bigger storyline spanning the entire franchise, but the audience doesn’t know the bigger storyline! Keep it coherent!

Another example of bad storytelling is, in my opinion, Batman’s attempt to find ‘the White Portuguese’. We were first shown Batman beating up and torturing a criminal in his attempts to obtain the information. We weren’t told who this person Batman is looking for, and why. This is disturbing because Batman was supposed to be one of the good guys that people root for, even if his methods were unorthodox, because his actions were always justified. Here, it was hard to support Batman’s actions because we didn’t know what the stakes were. The justifications were given later, when we were told the significance of ‘the White Portuguese’ (it’s carrying a ‘weapon’). Unfortunately, by then, I had already filed Batman under the ‘deranged-psychopath-torturing-people-for-ambiguous-reasons’ folder.

You might argue that this discomfort with Batman’s action was the central theme of the story. I see your point. It would have been a very thought-provoking and engaging theme, had it been done carefully. We were supposed to still think that Batman ultimately has good intentions, and weigh his actions with regards to the results. There should be ‘yes, he did [insert action], but…’ kind of feeling in us. In this case, we should have been informed about the reason first, and have the beating-up-criminal scene shown later, so that we can decide for ourselves where we stand on that spectrum. Instead, it was the other way around. Like I said, bad storytelling.

By then, I am really not endeared to Ben Affleck’s Batman, because further along the movie, we see Bruce Wayne desperate to gain information about LexCorp’s activity. He suggested breaking into LexCorp in the form of Batman, whereas a calm and collected Alfred told him that he could have gotten the information easily as Bruce Wayne. Instead of an intelligent Bruce Wayne who would think of the best way to get what he wanted, we get a Bruce Wayne who is enthusiastic to exercise his Batman status, regardless of the outcome. To make matters worse, even with the information in his hands, he failed to deduce Lex Luthor’s plans and walked straight into a trap. Fans of Batman would agree that what made Batman appealing were his intellect and his morality, and sadly, in this movie, we got neither.

Superman was just as bad. His character arc involves his godlike powers, and whether he should be accountable for his actions. Yet, despite all the controversy surrounding him, we see a rather emotionless Clark Kent going on with his life stoically. It didn’t seem to bother him that he pretty much leveled the entire city while fighting Zod. Also, in the scene where he rescued Lois Lane from the hands of a dictator, we were told that a massacre had happened at the same time. Yet, Superman had to mood to join Lois Lane in the bathtub when it was over. No guilt, no ‘I should have saved those villagers’. Come to think of it, had he appeared a few minutes earlier, he would have saved the CIA agent posing as Lois Lane’s colleague, and take out all the bad guys, thereby preventing the massacre. This is made worse by the fact that Superman has pretty much everything he needed to just swoop in and save the day: super hearing, the power to fly, and invincibility. Seriously, what’s his excuse? He got stuck in traffic or something?

In a much later part of the film, he was made to attend a hearing at the Capitol. A bomb detonated. Of course, being Superman, he survived. He confessed to Lois Lane that he didn’t know there was a bomb, because he wasn’t looking for it. So that explains why he didn’t save those villagers and all… he wasn’t looking! This also means that unless you’re Lois Lane, he won’t bother saving your life, except when it’s convenient for him. Thanks, douchebag.

After the Capitol bombing, we finally see him feeling guilty. At that point, I was surprised with the development, since he was involved in more than one incident where people died because of his actions (or inaction), and he was indifferent those previous times. Yes, I know that it’s one of the themes of the movie (whether Superman should be held responsible for the deaths and destruction in his name), but we weren’t supposed to side with the government on this. He didn’t seem to learn from his mistakes, or worse, he didn’t consider those other deaths his mistakes.

This brings me to the next point. Towards the climax, which is the fight between the heroes and the Zod-Lex Luthor abomination, we got a (relatively) thrilling scene where Superman lifted the monster and took the fight out into space. ‘He’s finally learning!’ I thought. The government, predictably, decided to use nuclear missiles in retaliation, not caring about Superman’s safety. It was supposed to make the audience worry about Superman, to denounce the selfish actions of the government, and to applaud Superman’s sacrifice… and yet, should we?

You see, this is another example of bad storytelling in this movie. We weren’t told if Superman will be affected by the nuclear bomb. If it was some other superhero, we might have a reason to worry, but hey, Superman just took a bomb blast to his face in the Capitol not long ago, and he was fine. Not a single scratch on his pretty face, not a single tear on his costume. We weren’t shown the limit to the amount of non-kryptonite-related damage he can take, and I honestly thought he will just shrug off the nuclear blast. I wasn’t worried at all.

Compare this to the most direct analogy I can think of: Ironman bringing the nuclear warhead out to space in The Avengers. In that scene, we were told that Ironman will potentially die from his actions. It seemed possible, because Ironman, as far as we know, is still mortal. In BvS, we had Calvin telling the President that Superman might die, but it felt like a halfhearted throwaway dialogue that no one really paid attention to. Had he been given another second of screen time to protest and argue his case, I think that scene would have a significant emotional impact.

I was looking forward to see the part where after all the conflict and drama, the heroes will resolve their issues and work together to defeat the bigger enemy. Instead, what we got was a disjointed, badly choreographed fight where the three heroes were hardly shown interacting with each other. Batman spent most of his time avoiding attacks and ducking behind walls, while Superman spent a significant amount of time with Lois Lane. Wonder Woman seemed to be the only one whose heart is truly in the fight.

You might think of this as a lazy analogy, but I am going to talk about the Avengers again. The Avengers handle this kind of teamwork far more effectively. Even when the heroes are not in close proximity to one another, they had some kind of communication and delegation of tasks. In fact, just from the trailer itself, the fights in Captain America: Civil War seemed far more interesting than the final fight in BvS. In the trailer, when you see Cap and Bucky taking on Ironman together, they had this team chemistry to them that tells you they are working together. Another example, from the same trailer, would be the part where Ironman signals for Spiderman, who appeared and snatched Cap’s shield. These kind of scenes tell a lot about the team dynamics, be it verbal or nonverbal. For BvS, not only were the heroes shown to be physically separated, they were hardly talking to each other. They might as well be random strangers fighting the same monster.

To further illustrate my point, I would argue that Superman’s death was entirely preventable. It has long been established that Superman will be weakened against kryptonite, so why does he have to be the one to get the kryptonite spear?! Batman could have been the one to get it. After all, the whole reason he lured the monster to that spot was so that he could kill it with the spear. Yet when Superman and Wonder Woman appeared, he seemed to have totally forgotten about it. We don’t know if Wonder Woman is sensitive to the effects of kryptonite (I personally don’t think so), but Batman was the one who made the weapon, so wouldn’t it be fitting that he uses it? Not only this drastically reduces the teamwork factor between them, it makes Batman a poor strategist as well. Finally, Superman’s death was to be an emotional scene, but I was too busy shaking my head at the incredulity of it all to really mourn. So there you go: a prime example of a poorly thought out plot.

The villain could make or break a story. What we have was a potentially interesting villain in the form of Lex Luthor, who is actually very iconic in the Superman universe. He is an intelligent villain, who can be quite sinister and menacing. Instead, we get a highly grating, whiny and overacting Jesse Eisenberg. He was so hyperactive that he appears more like a desperate high schooler trying to be cool than a serious villain. It was hard to take him seriously, which was unfortunate, because the final monster that the heroes have to battle was shown to be a mixture of Lex Luthor’s DNA with Zod’s body so the monster was supposed to be… hyperactive? Really, I see no quality of this movie’s Lex Luthor that will be of any use to the monster in its fight against Batman and company.

I really tried to like this movie. I thought the philosophical arguments about power, about accountability, about man and about God, could have been very engaging. This film tries, but it would have required a good narration to pull it through. It had ambitions that were thwarted by sloppy writing and incoherent pacing.  Before I end this article, the following are a few minor complaints that I have about the movie:

1. The Wayne Enterprise employees have no sense of self-preservation. They could clearly see the destruction outside their windows, and they waited for their boss to call them and tell them to evacuate? I get that the movie wanted the emotional impact from their deaths, but you could have them die from buildings falling on them while they were evacuating, or while they were in the streets. Same outcome, more logical plot. Worst was Jack, who told everyone to leave the building, but stood there waiting for his own death. Seriously, dude.

2. Clark Kent is probably the world’s worst reporter. When Bruce Wayne showed up, he was like, “Who’s that?” Oh, I don’t know… just one of the richest men on the planet?

3. The resolution of the conflict between Batman and Superman came because both have moms named Martha. Forget about all the disagreements, forget about all differences in ideologies and methods… all you really need is a convenient common point in the form of your mother’s name.

4. When Batman challenged Superman to the fight, he was shown to be immediately trying to murder Superman, who didn’t even have a chance to explain his case. Superman was not even approaching him in a threatening manner. This reinforced the idea that this version of Batman is a trigger-happy psychopath who just wants to kill people.

5. Seriously, what’s up with the branding?! We know that Batman was angry, but the anger was mostly towards Superman, so why does he go around branding random criminals who were no way related to Superman?

I suppose that’s all I have to say about this movie. I just hope that the Wonder Woman movie will be better (mainly so that Hollywood has no more excuses about not making female superhero movies).