Lucky Number Slevin

Lucky Number Slevin came out at a time in my life that I was just starting to delve into more graphic movies for the first time. It wasn’t the first hard R movie I saw, but I do remember it in a string of films I was interested in because it was a level I had never really seen before. I’m not totally sure what interested me about this movie, but it had some intrigue so I thought I’d check it out. This is the first time I’ve seen it since that initial viewing and since that was such a long time ago, it was like I was watching it for the first time… except I knew exactly all the surprises and twists that are essential parts of the movie.

Lucky Number Slevin is a pretty self-contained story about a young man named Slevin (played by Josh Hartnett). Slevin has a bad day in which he loses his job, his girlfriend cheats on him, and he gets mugged. He decides to spend a few days visiting his friend Nick who seems to have disappeared. Slevin meets the spunky neighbor of his friend Nick, Lindsey (played by Lucy Liu?) and the two hit it off. However, she has a horrible feeling that Nick is in trouble. Before they start their investigation, Slevin is taken and introduced to the leaders of two mafia organizations only known as The Boss (played by Morgan Freeman) and the Rabbi (played by Ben Kingsley). Each of them believe he is Nick Fisher and that he owes them both a large sum of money. These two gangs are in a cold war between the two of them and I’ll be honest, that is actually the more interesting part about this story. But I’ll get to that in a little bit.

Slevin must find a way to obtain the money for The Boss and The Rabbi before they kill him. All the while, a mysterious hitman named Mr. Goodcat (played by Bruce Willis) is shadowing the whole ordeal.

This is a strange movie. On one hand, the story is your typical mafia revenge story. But at the same time, there are just so many ridiculous elements to this story that make it so much more different that your run of the mill mafia revenge story.

The biggest strengths of this movie is the dialogue. This movie is very much a Tarantino-esque film because of all the witty dialogue and exchanges between the characters in what should be very scary situations. Furthermore, the set up is so simple and so ridiculous that it feels almost satire-like, like a Tarantino film might do now and again. However, the other part about this movie is that there are some incredibly serious parts. I won’t spoil the ending, but there are no laughs like there are early on in the film and its very dramatic. Tarantino films, while they cover a dark subject matter, still manage to maintain levity and a ridiculousness about them even in the darkest and more dramatic parts. This movie does not do that.

I don’t want to make it sound like this movie is trying to rip off a Tarantino style film, or that those movies should be compared to this one. It just the first thing I can think of to describe the style of this movie, and if that is what they’re going for, it just didn’t strike the balance of ridiculously simple and fun to dark subject matter and serious moments.

A lot of this movie revolves around the twist at the end of the movie. And while it is a decent twist, its really easy to spot it well before the movie shows its cards. It all connects with a story that Mr. Goodcat tells at the beginning of the movie about a fixed horse race. The problem is, after that story they just never speak of it until its brought back into the fold for the twist ending. Its like the movie wanted us to forget about that story they told at the beginning and the truth is, it’s kind of hard to forget. If you’re paying attention at all, you can probably guess the twist ending from the get go and while there might be some parts of the twist you didn’t see coming, its still pretty easy to spot.

Now I have to give credit where its due, if you’ve seen the movie before, it is kind of fun watching it a second time and recognizing the hints and clues that will lead you to the twist before the movie reveals it. However, since a lot of the movie is focused on that twist, it kind of takes the wind out of the sails for the rest of the narrative because you know why something is happening, or you know

why a character does something. While its fun watching it a second time to recognize the clues, I can’t imagine watching this movie again because the twist is known.

And since it’s such a self-contained story, it doesn’t have a huge impact. The scale of this story is very personal that you might come out of it saying… well… that was a movie but why did I have to care?

And a lot of that comes down to the characters.

I don’t want to say the characters are bad, I just don’t think they’re written incredibly well. And that goes back into the fact that a lot of this movie evolves around the twist ending. You can’t really get to know these characters that well because they’re trying to hide who exactly they are.

Again without spoilers, I’m going to go over the characters and the performances that go along with them.

Josh Hartnett is an actor I go back and forth on whether or not I like him. On one hand, he’ll always be that dopey, wooden faced friend of Ben Affleck’s from Pearl Harbor, and lord knows I just want to forget about that movie, but at the same time, I’ve seen some pretty good performances out of him, like what he did in Black Hawk Down. On top of that, the guy has really gone obscure and can only be found these days doing one or two movies a year and they’re all really indie flicks. I really can’t put a beat on this guy as far as his career goes. Now for this movie, I enjoyed him. I think he fit the whole snarky and sarcastic tone of the movie and I really enjoyed his flare to it. I’m not going to write a raving review about his performance, but I thought it was decent. Granted, Hartnett always has a blank wooden stare on his face in everything he does and I can’t always tell a good performance from him. However, in this film I got something. And for what it was, I enjoyed it.

The main people worth talking about in this movie are Morgan Freeman as The Boss, and Ben Kingsley as The Rabbi. While they aren’t the most inspiring roles of their careers, they are the most experienced actors on screen and they do a good job. Its worth noting that this is a very different performance from Morgan Freeman that I have ever seen. The guy has played the “bad guy” in movies before but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him pull out a performance like this. He’s always very calm and very collected. This movie, especially at the end, I actually saw him show someone who is a little bit unhinged.

The problem with these two is that it doesn’t seem like the movie had the budget to have a lot of screen time for them. They show up to set up the conflict, then the rest of the movie is the love story between Slevin and Lucy Liu's character. 

Speaking of which, I go back and forth on whether or not I liked Lucy Liu at all in this movie. On one hand, they do a decent job at setting up this random happen stance relationship, in that they just happen to run into each other, she's quirky, he's charming, it works. But on the other hand it doesn't work as much when they suddenly fall in love after one day. While I thought the writing for these two was charming and decent at setting something up in a very short time, it doesn't really put aside the fact that it set something up in a very short time. 

And then there's Bruce Willis. 

The thing about Bruce Willis is that even when he doesn't say anything, he's just built up an image of himself that he can just look at you and he will be intimidated. So on one hand, his character does work because he is this hitman that is so shrouded in mystery that not saying anything really works to his advantage. 

But on the other hand, this movie kind of falls under the category of Bruce Willis not really trying because he probably knows his looks alone intimidate people and that's all he needs to do for this movie so he can just kind of phone it in. 

So overall, what can I say about Lucky Number Slevin? Its a self contained story, which is a good thing... until you know the twists and turns and the surprise is gone. Its well written, but I think its trying to be more than it actually is. And the parts that they should have focused on, they either didn't have the money for, or they wanted to focus on other things and didn't give the things they should have focused on the time those things needed. 

Its a decent film, just not something I'm gonna rave about. 

But those are my thoughts on Lucky Number Slevin. Have you seen it? What did you think about it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. God bless Bruce Willis. He's this great actor, he's got a bunch of action franchises to his belt, especially Die Hard... but there's a theory out there that says that with every movie he does bald, he gives less and less of a crap. Here's him with Donald Trump hair... take from that what you will. Enjoy!

The Ridiculous 6

I've never been a huge fan of Adam Sandler. I like some of his movies like Happy Gilmore and Click. I even enjoy him a little bit more when he does dramatic work. I actually thought Funny People was a pretty decent movie. But Adam Sandler continues to make movies that not only don't look good, they also just aren't films I have any interest in seeing. Even when I saw the trailer for Ridiculous 6, I knew from the get go that this movie was going to suck. But I wanted to go in with an open mind and try and enjoy it. I had heard some people liked it... Couldn't be all bad. Could it?

The Ridiculous 6 is an absurdist comedy about a white man named Tommy (played by Adam Sandler) growing up with Native Americans. He meets his father (played by Nick Nolte) who left him when he was young, and he figures out that his father is dying and he hid a treasure somewhere safe. Soon after this meeting, his father is kidnapped by Danny Trejo and taken away. Tommy makes it his goal to save his father by robbing the rich and evil. Along the way he runs into 5 men who he soon figures out are the bastard children of his very same father. These men include Rob Schnedier pretending to be Mexican, Taylor Lautner pretending to be mentally challenged, Jorge Garcia playing a man who can't speak, Luke Wilson being Luke Wilson, and Terry Crews playing Terry Crews. The brothers band together to create a gang that are soon known as The Ridiculous 6 and their one goal is steal from those who don't deserve their money, and save their father.

I'm going to say right off the bat, this movie is incredibly racist. And you might so, but Connor, its a movie set in the old west, people were racist back then. And yeah that is true but that doesn't excuse the fact that Rob Schneider is playing a Mexican, even though he is very clearly white. You might say, but Connor, its satirical, its not supposed to be taken seriously. And to that I say, there is a certain level of satire that is funny, and a certain level that is unexcusable, once again... Rob Schneider as a Mexican. And you might say, but Connor, Blazing Saddles said the N word and that's a dark satire. And to that I say, HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THIS TO BLAZING SADDLES!!!

Now a part of me wants to believe that this movie was just Adam Sandler getting a much of his buddies together and doing a cowboy movie. Chances are a lot of the jokes seemed funny at the time and even if I didn't get them, I can still give them credit for just doing something for fun.

But at some point, someone had to have said, Guys! Maybe we're taking these jokes too far? Maybe we shouldn't portray Native Americans in the most stereotypical way we possibly could, so much that the majority of Native American advisors and experts left the shooting of the movie because the Apache tribe was being portrayed in such a horrible way? Maybe we're not the best people to make light of the horrible way people who weren't white were treated back in the Old West? Maybe we shouldn't have Rob Schneider be a Mexican!

And it kind of worries me that Netflix defended this movie. They tried to play it off like it was a satire and it was making fun of the stereotypes they popularized. To that I say, look to Blazing Saddles.

Blazing Saddles was a movie just ahead of its time because it was a movie that boldly took on stereotypes and made light of them. Something Netflix is claiming that The Ridiculous 6 does as "everyone is in on the joke". But what Blazing Saddles also did was to point out the fallacies in those stereotypes and definitely point out the people who were bad and using those stereotypes for harmful purposes and praising those who didn't. Gene Wilder's character in that film is the good guy because while he probably has the prejudices that everyone else had, he's still not exploiting them or discounting Cleavon Little's character because he's black.

Its been a while since I've seen Blazing Saddles, but what I do remember is that while the movie used the N-Word, while they refer to native americans in a horrible way, while the movie has the stereotypes of the time, it still demonized those stereotypes, as they should, while making fun of the audience for having those same stereotypes and making light of it all.

And on top of it, the writers of Blazing Saddles were people like Mel Brooks and Richard Prior. To pretty well established comedians who had were not only great at satire, but would bring great movies and comedy in the future. The Ridiculous 6 was written and produced by Adam Sandler... who's last good film was in 2009 with Funny People... and that wasn't even a satire.

I hope I have made the point very, very clear, that you shouldn't be watching this movie on the sole fact that it is incredibly offensive to pretty much anyone and everyone. Even if you're not offended by this, don't be a dick, don't support this kind of movie.

But since we live in a world where Donald Trump is still getting an overwhelming amount of support to be President and the argument that this movie is incredibly offensive won't be enough for some viewers, let me delve into the other reasons this movie does not work.

The first reason is this: This movie is not funny... whatsoever.

Like I said, I tried to go into this movie with an open mind. Very rarely, even if I don't like a comedy will I sit through a comedy and not laugh once. I've heard the phrase before, even a man in jail has to smile sometime. Even if I think a comedy is horrible, I'm probably gonna get a few chuckles here and there. That wasn't the case with The Ridiculous 6. There was one time that I actually laughed. One time. The only reason that happened was because the result of the joke was not what I expected it to be. It was a shock laugh. That was the only time the movie made me laugh and the only time the movie made me smile.

Now maybe I'm just a joyless loser who doesn't find the beauty in a good poop joke, but the truth is, the timing is just off. The casting is off. The jokes just don't land the way I think they really wanted it to.

When it comes to casting, everyone just looks bored and out of place.

I mean for a movie that stars Adam Sandler, he just looks sad and pissed off the entire time.

And this just emphasizes where Adam Sandler's career has gone off to. Happy Gilmore is an example of a really good Adam Sandler movie. A movie I still have a lot of fun watching. He didn't look bored, he looked like was just having fun.

And I don't know if this was a passion project, or just Adam Sandler getting all this buddies together to film a stupid movie, but that's all this is... a stupid movie.

And speaking of all his friends, I mean ALL of his friends.

I am actually really surprised for how shitty of a movie this one was how many cameos they were able to get. Harvey Keitel (who was probably the best part of the movie) was in this. Danny Trejo, Steve Buscemi, David Spade, Jon Lovetiz, Blake Shelton for pete's sake!

I just figured out the best way to describe this movie.

Think of the show, Drunk History on Comedy Central. Imagine them writing the script for this movie while they were drunk and feeling a little bit racist while writing it. And then instead of having the actors mouth it and put in the drunk dialogue later, they said, "No, Act that!"

That is the best explanation of what The Ridiculous 6 looks and feels like.

And then there's this...

What is this? Did Lautner pull the short straw or something?

Now I guess I should give Taylor Lautner some credit. He does not have a career. He did Twilight and nobody hired him. Nobody wants to hire the beefcake who can't act for shit. So I have to give him credit, it feels like this is an attempt to revitalize his career while he tries to get his acting chops up to snuff.

But to that I say, why the hell would you choose to put your confidence in revitalizing your career behind a man who's comedic career is not only dead but has been in the grave for years now in Sandler?

The one other movie I can compare this movie to is A Million Ways to Die in the West.

Now if you read this blog, you'll know that I am of the unpopular opinion that I actually enjoyed A Million Ways to Die in the West. I liked Seth MacFarlene trying to make fun of the old west and I think he did a pretty good job at pointing out the issues with the world that we often glorify.

However, A Million Ways to Die in the West is not a perfect movie. A lot of people are not a fan of it. However, if you had to choose between A Million Ways to Die in the West or The Ridiculous 6, I can say that 9 people out of 10 would choose A Million Ways to Die in the West.

While a lot of the jokes don't land as well as MacFarlene made jokes land in movies like Ted, at least I was laughing my ass off in A Million Ways to Die in the West. At least MacFarlene grasps a basic sense of humor in this movie.

Sandler does not one bit. And while you might not like A Million Ways to Die in the West because you're not a fan of MacFarlene's humor, I think even some of the dumbest Adam Sandler fans can agree that The Ridiculous 6 was just down right bad.

I'm going to stop now because I feel like I'm repeating myself. But have you seen The Ridiculous 6? What did you think of it? Please if someone can explain how this movie is any good at all, comment or reach out to me on Twitter because I want to know! Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for future movies I should review. If you follow me on Twitter you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's a video of when Adam Sandler used to be funny. Enjoy!

Turn: Washington's Spies Season 1

So the reason I started watching Turn was a little bit unorthodox. I was interested in watching the show, but I told myself that I needed to be in a certain mood before I watched it. Namely the mood that I am interested in watching a drama set in 1776 in the middle of the American Revolution. And oddly enough the thing that put me in that mood was actually listening to the soundtrack of the musical Hamilton.

But while these two shows are set in the American Revolution, they couldn't be any more different. (But I'm guessing that's pretty obvious).

Turn stars Jamie Bell as Abraham Woodhull. Based off a real person, Abraham is a simple cabbage farmer in Revolutionary era America. His village, however, is sympathetic towards the British government and Abraham wants nothing to do with the Revolution. He just wants to live a simple life with his wife and young son.

That however cannot hide him from the inevitable revolution taking place all around him and the way it affects his life. One of the first concerns him and his wife have is that when their son gets old enough he'll be conscripted into the military. (this is something that is never really brought up again but regardless, it shows the revolution is everywhere in this show.

Throughout his village there are several people with ties in either direction of the Revolution. He has childhood friends like the husband of his childhood love, Anna Strong (played by Heather Lind) who is accused of conspiring with the enemy. You have other childhood friends who have been forced to live in exile from their village because they have openly supported the Constitutional Congress.

And then you have Woodhull's father (played by Kevin R McNally) who is a Judge and a leader in the community who is 100% in favor of the British occupation of their village. He sees the British as the right side and it actually is interesting seeing the two sides of it.

In history class you always were taught that the Americans were the good guys and the British were the bad guys. Turn does something cool in that they bring humanity, as well as cruelty, to both sides.

While the show mainly has the American revolutionists on the good side, they still manage to not only show the human side of the British officers and soldiers they run into, but they also show that the Revolutionists don't always act in the most humane and right way.

I really enjoyed that dynamic.

Where Woodhull's father comes in is that I liked McNally's performance. He has a dual hatted role in that he needs to be the disapproving father, but he also has an evolving role in the whole story. I really only know McNally from Pirates of the Carribean, which is set in a similar environment, and he plays that role pretty well.

Now on the side of the British Army, there are a couple of characters that are pretty good, and there are characters that are pretty gawd awful.

Firs there's this Bozo.

Captain Simcoe (played by Samuel Roukin) is one of the shows main antagonists. And from the get go, you know he's the bad guy. He's creepy, he's psychotic, he's flamboyant, he's just The Bad Guy.

But just because Samuel Roukin is a little bit of a creepy ginger-type character, that doesn't mean he's either a compelling bad guy, or a good actor. He's just weird. And yeah, he makes you a little uneasy, but I'm not going to say Simcoe was a really entertaining bad guy. He was just there. Especially in how they used him. Furthermore, he was just dumb. He would do things just for the sake of being The Bad Guy and he's not really that smart.

The interesting bad guys were JJ Feild's character who seemed to be orchestrating a whole British espionage plot. Or Angus Macfadyen who played the leader the Queen's Rangers who was a villain in a greyish matter. Or Burn Gorman who's playing the British Major who is terrified of real combat is really only an authoritative occupier. These were the bad guys who were actually interesting. But no, they kept on focusing on creepy Mcginger face in Simcoe.

Other than that, the cast is a lot of fun.

You can really tell that the show is trying to be a little bit of an American Revolution Game of Thrones. Nobody can be trusted, everyone's motives are hidden in shadows, and everyone is trying to get power in their own way.

Is it done very well? Well... yes?

The truth is, I'm not going to say this show is fantastic, its not. There are a lot of shows that have made me feel a lot more than Turn ever did. There are a lot of shows that I think did drama, thrills, and action a lot better than thrill. There are a lot of shows that have done political intrigue better. And there are a shows that have had better performances.

But overall did I enjoy Turn, yes, I did.

I really enjoyed Jamie Bell who prior to this, I really only knew from Jumper, a movie I enjoyed but at the end of the day know is pretty bad, and Fan 4 Stic where he barely played The Thing. But in this he actually does a pretty good job. I liked his performance.

Heather Lind plays his former lover and childhood friend.

I mean the truth is I'm not gonna turn down any performance from a woman who is as gorgeous as Heather Lind and wears colonial dress that shows off certain areas more than regular dress. On top of that (because I don't hold people to just their looks) she does give a good performance. Is it phenomenal, no. Part of it is the fact that her character isn't written the greatest, but I at least enjoyed her character and the relationship between her and Abraham.

Now the love triangle that happens between her, Abraham, and Abraham's wife is a little bit convoluted and not exactly the most well thought out storyline, but I enjoyed her.

Also, there is something incredibly sexy about a woman with a Scottish accent.

The fun part about Turn is that it is really is set in a fun environment. I'm surprised that there aren't more colonial television shows, especially in the age of television we live in.

But Abraham's friends who joined the revolution show that there is some intrigue to this subject. It is fun to learn about a different side of history that you might have thought you knew all about like the American Revolution.

And like popular games of Assassins Creed, its fun to see these characters interact in a world you've learned about and see the cameos from certain characters of history.

Of course the build up of George Washington is really big because in the beginning, everyone is mentioning his name like a legend and then he finally arrives and you're suppose to get excited.

Now I think the problem this show has is that it kind of works against itself sometimes. The show is trying to be so serious and its trying to be something that has already been done, that it comes off as incredibly joyless, in a world that is pretty joyless to begin with.

I mean lets be honest, the Revolutionary War is not an era anybody would want to live in. But the very fact that this is set in that era should open up for a lot of fun, and at the end of the day, Turn just isn't as fun as I think I would like it to be.

Now, could it "Turn" into something more entertaining with more seasons coming out and the second season coming to Netflix (honestly the only time I would actually watch it)? Yeah I think it could. I've heard that Benedict Arnold is in the second season and I have no doubt that the first season was more of an introduction season. But those are just promises for the future. Right now I'm basing it off what I've seen.

The first Season of Turn has a lot of historical drama in it as well as some decent performances from Jamie Bell, Kevin McNally, and others. It has its pitfalls sure, but if you're interested in the American Revolution like I am, you'll probably like it a lot. If you're more interested in a compelling story and political intrigue, you will get some of that here. Overall though, Turn gives us a lot to be desired. I hope they can pick up their game in the second season.

But what do you think? Have you seen Turn? Comment and Discuss your thoughts on it below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for future movie and TV shows I should review on this blog. If you follow me you can get updates on movie news and reviews that I post as often as I can.

I'll leave you with this. Here is the musical that got me into the mood to watch this show and I think it owes my viewing to it. Here's the cast singing at the White House. Enjoy!

House of Cards: Season 3

So the truth is, I think the reason it took me so long to get into House of Cards was not only because I realized it was as dry as a piece of toast, but I also heard the seasons got progressively worse. I didn’t hear too many complaints about the 2^nd season, but I definitely didn’t hear praises about it. But more importantly, I heard that the show really slows down when it comes to the 3^rd season. So me, having watched the first season and not really being incredibly impressed with it, wasn’t incredibly invested in watching 2 more seasons if the show was only going to get worse as it went along.

But like I’ve said, this has been a journey towards the 4^th season. Suddenly, there was something that I was looking forward to and something to drive on towards. Luckily, I think the second season is probably just as, if not better, than the first season. And the third season… well…

What I will say about the end of the second season is that the ending had finality about it. There are a couple of loose ends and cliff hangers, but overall, while I wanted to see what was going to happen next, the show probably could have ended there.

The 2^nd season ends with the culmination of Frank throwing the Walker administration into international and domestic controversy. Underwood manipulates the relationship between the President and the First Lady, starts a trade war with China, and puts Raymond Tusk on the verge of criminal charges. While he finds himself brushing with controversy himself, Frank is able to manipulate the President into resigning, and takes the Presidency for himself.

Along the way his wife Claire (played by Robin Wright) finds herself at the brunt of controversy but is able to come out as a strong and likable figure, important to Underwood’s image.

Doug Stamper (played by Michael Kelly) finds himself tormented by Rachel Posner, the prostitute they have been hiding away due to her involvement with Peter Russo and his death in the first season but when he finally decides to dispose of her, she escapes and beats him almost to death.

The great thing about the second season as how streamlined it was. It was focused on Underwood and everything seemed poignant and moving towards his rise to power.

The third season started off on a creative, but very different foot. Something I noticed from the get go was the fact that there seemed to be a lot less Frank Underwood to begin with. The first episode focused a lot on Doug Stamper and his recovery from the attack made on him by Rachel Posner at the end of the second season. The focus of the show started off centering on more characters than just Frank. And that’s not really a bad thing, it was just very different.

I mentioned in the review of season 2 that Claire takes a larger part in that season, but she takes an even larger part in this season. The difference though is that in the 2^nd season, you got to know Claire as a public figure. In this season, you got to know her more as a more in-depth character. In the 2^nd season you figured out more about her past, but in this season you figured out more about her

ambitions. Clare thrives in this season and unlike other seasons where you wondered where her mind totally was, this season you got to figure out her motivations and suddenly it made the things that happened around her all the more meaningful because we understood what it meant to her.

Doug Stamper becomes a larger character in this one because he’s suddenly out of the loop while he’s recovering from his injuries. He falls off the bandwagon and becomes an alcoholic again. I was always a fan of Michael Kelly before this show, this made me see him as a phenomenal actor. You cared for his character and what’s more, you figured out that Frank Underwood cared for his character. When everyone, including the guy you are supposed to know is a bad guy cares for this character, you really care for this character a lot. And what’s more is that his arc was really flushed out in this season. And it was flushed out well!

This season continued to flush out more characters you thought were already flushed out pretty well, like Molly Parker as Jackie Sharp, and Mahershala Ali as Remy Danton, especially in their new roles as being closer to Underwood in one way or another. Where some shows have their character’s motivations change from season to season, all the primary characters really seemed to stay exactly where they left off and if they did change, it was because Frank screwed them over, or there was a really good reason as to why they were the way they were.

On top of that, there are characters from the 2^nd season that were barely mentioned that are brought to the forefront. One of them being Heather Dunbar (played by Elizabeth Marvel) who decides to run for President when the Democrats all but force Frank not to run for office himself, she is a strong character and a great foil for Frank. The hilarious part about her character is that if you didn’t already spend 2 seasons with Frank, you’d be rooting for her. Overall, she should be the “good guy” in this entire saga, but she’s not. She’s unlikeable, and you don’t want her to win against your best judgment. 

And then there is the President of Russia, Viktor Petrov (played by Lars Mikkelsen). And the great part about this character is that he is Vladimir Putin. I’m not saying he’s like Vladimir Putin or he’s based off of him, he IS Vladimir Putin. Yes he has a different name, but this is the President of Russia who is former KGB, is a total badass, and doesn’t give two shits about the politics of the United States. He IS Vladimir Putin. That becomes a big part of the season, but I will talk about the structure of the season in a little bit.

But on top of him being ripped right out of the headlines and current events, I thought the character of Viktor Petrov was a lot of fun and it added a lot to the story. I thought the whole situation between the United States was really interesting and if anything was going to be Frank's next big challenge, it would be the rivals and powerful people in the international community, and who is a better rival than the President of Russia? 

I will talk more about the role of Frank Underwood in a little bit but the fact of the matter is, this was the natural choice for this season. It was a good choice and I liked it. 

If this show hadn’t been about Frank Underwood and been focused on him the entire time, I would say this is a solid cast of characters in a slightly darker look on the politics of today. The problem is Frank Underwood. Now don’t misunderstand me, Kevin Spacey still nails it in this season. He still makes Frank Underwood one of the best performances in his career.

The problem with Underwood in this season is that he’s gone as high as he can go.

In the first season, Frank Underwood was just a Senator from South Carolina. He was in leadership but he seemed to be almost unknown. It was his ambition and his striving for power that made him an interesting character. It was also the plans he made to amass that power and go from that position as Senator to Vice President. In the second season, it was the same ploy, but it had to be done differently from the position of Vice President to President.

The third season put Frank Underwood as the most powerful man in the free world. Where does he go from there? Manipulating to maintain power is a little bit different from manipulating to gain power. And on top of it all, Frank actually has to do his job. In the past everything seemed to be working towards the goal of putting Frank in the Oval Office. Now it seems like Frank is actually making decisions as the President of the United States. Of course it’s for a legacy and to have his name remembered, however, that seems at least a little bit more honorable. He actually needs to do what the President does, and regardless of what the motivations for it is, some of it kind of puts Frank in the right.

In a sense, Season 3 of House of Cards is basically a much darker season of The West Wing with Frank Underwood instead of Josiah Bartlet.

Now you could make a more philosophical argument that while you could make the justification of the earlier seasons that he’s just an evil man who knows the loopholes of power, this one is more pointing out the flaws in the powers of the President and he close a person in that power could be to a tyrant. It’s a stretch but it could be argued.

The point is, House of Cards is better at a show about the worst of the worst politicians in Washington. As much as we've wanted to see Frank Underwood reach this position, the result just isn't what I thought it was going to be I guess. 

Is it bad? No. I don't think so. 

Even though the policy aspects about House of Cards isn't the best part about Season 3, it does have some aspects about it. Furthermore, this season is building up to the 4th season. I have a lot of friends who have watched the 4th season all the way through and they praise it saying that a lot of what happens in Season 3 is building up to what happens in Season 4. And that's what I'm excited for. 

I think the acting in Season 3 has been fantastic as it always is and the dynamic between Frank and Claire continues to be something that both drives the show, and becomes a point of contention that you no doubt see coming to its critical mass by the end of the third season.

Without giving too many spoilers (in case you haven't watched the 3rd season yet), the relationship between Claire and Frank is fantastic.

Now this relationship has always been weird and its always been a little bit off putting. But these two have something that really works for them and works perfectly for the show.

Now that might change by the end of this season and there is a lot that happens in this season that makes these two contentious.

Its funny because in the first season of the British version, Claire's equivalent is barely in it at all. Its a real applause for Robin Wright, who even directed a couple episodes, who not only keeps up with the caliber of Kevin Spacey but sometimes outshines him, especially in this season.

Overall, this season is good. Its not great. Its good. The acting continues to be good, the drama continues to be good, but at the end of the day, it felt like a step backwards instead of a show that has continued to raise the stakes with every season.

Now, is it fair to expect this show to just continue to get better and better? I think so. We've seen it with shows like Breaking Bad, and we've seen it before. Its difficult, but House of Cards is one of those shows that has decided to distinguish itself, we expect more. So for the 4th season, I don't want to see this show turn into the darker West Wing, and lets get back to House of Cards.

But have you seen House of Cards Season 3? What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on this and other movies and shows on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as give me requests for movies and shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get more movie news and reviews updates coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Of course, somebody made a spoof of House of Cards using the opening sequence and music from The West Wing. Of course because this blog's Youtube connection is weird (I really have to figure it out one of these days), here is a video of Robin Wright dancing... thats cool right? Enjoy!

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Spoiler Review)

Now I’ve taken some time to really digest Batman v Superman, and even saw it a second time to really develop my real thoughts on the movie. I stand by what I said in my non-spoiler review in that it is not a very well made movie, however with some time to think and talking about the spoilers, I might change my overall opinion for a multitude of reasons. I know I went into the movie on that Friday with really high expectations and perhaps the movie just didn’t live up to them at the time. All I’m saying is, it might seem like I didn’t not the movie as much in this review. We’ll just have to wait until the end and how I end up on it.

I’ve said it a million times, but one of the biggest things with this movie is that it is 2 and half hours long and it feels that way. Now I’m not opposed to a 2 and half hour long movie about Batman v Superman if it’s done correctly. This movie was not done correctly. I’m going to structure this review in the most coherent way I can manage to but the truth is, this movie didn’t structure itself in a coherent way so I have to figure out a way to structure the mess.

I’m going to try and give my thoughts on the two major parts of this movie that are expressed in its title. I’ll start with the struggle between Batman and Superman and their characters as a whole as well as the development they go through throughout the film. After that I will delve into the “Dawn of Justice” part. But because Dawn of Justice isn’t even a correct representation of the events in this movie, or at least it wasn’t what I think everyone thought it was.

After I talk about the movie as a whole, perhaps at the end (or in a near future post) I want to talk about where they go with the future of this franchise.

Batman v Superman – So I’m going to say right off the bat, I’ve been saying this since the beginning, but this is what the movie should have been about. This and only this. This movie should have been a war of ideology between Batman and Superman. I was okay with Lex Luthor being in this movie but I would have preferred him to be more of a set up character, conniving in the background and throwing fuel in the fire that is the struggle between Batman and Superman.

I’ll say right off the bat that when these two actually end up fighting, which is not as much as I believed it was going to be, but when they do, it’s a lot of fun. It’s a brutal fight and it really extenuates these two characters. I thought their fight wasn’t nearly as long or as of a fight as I wanted it to be but perhaps that’s because I already saw a lot of it in the trailers.

And this complaint goes for a lot of the movie. This was the exact reason I didn’t watch any trailers for Star Wars: The Force Awakens and why I consider not watching trailers anymore because I felt like a lot of the big moments from this movie were in the trailer. I won’t say all the big scenes were in the trailers, but A LOT of them were. I think a lot of the moments from this movie would have been a lot more impactful if I not seen them already in the trailer.

Superman – Superman’s character was probably the biggest thing returning from Man of Steel that I was analyzing in watching this film. I thought Man of Steel did a good job at introducing the character of Clark Kent/ Kal El/ Superman, but I thought they needed another movie to really develop him as a character. I saw Batman v Superman as a perfect opportunity to show off Henry Cavil as the good actor I know he is, and really give Superman some internal dilemmas as well as develop him as a character.

And like most things in this movie, there are inklings of that but it’s not to the extent that I wanted it to be. I thought they did a really good job at developing his life as Clark Kent and Superman, especially in this pursuit of Batman. He doesn’t immediately go to Batman when he sees something wrong with his vigilante justice; he tries to bring it to light at the Daily Planet. I really liked that. And you can tell all Clark wants to do is the right thing. Re-watching Man of Steel after watching Batman v Superman really supports that because you saw that when Clark was growing up.

That is something that I do like about the DCU as of right now in that these movies are really dependent on one another. The events of Man of Steel are the catalyst for the events of Batman v Superman. Now the casual movie goer isn’t going to appreciate that that much, but as a huge fan of Man of Steel, Batman v Superman has made me even more of a fan of it like I thought it was going to.

The thing that didn’t really complete Superman for me was his approach to Batman. When his attempts at dealing with it at the Daily Planet don’t pan out, he messed up the Batmobile and says, “When they shine your light, don’t go to it. Consider this mercy”. This could have been a great motivation for the fight in the future. He’s not only doing what he thinks is the right thing to do, but it goes in tandem with Clark questioning his role in the world. What exactly he should be. With all the big ideas that happened in this movie, this should have been the main idea for Superman and it should have been his motivation for going to kick Batman’s ass.

The reason this didn’t work in the movie was because the movie was so muddled with so much stuff that that never really got flushed out correctly. You saw it but it felt shoe horned in. After thinking about it, they really try, but it just doesn’t land. I’ll talk more about the motivation for the final fight between Batman and Superman when I get to talking about Lex Luthor, but the more I think about this movie, the more sad I get because the inner turmoil of Clark Kent is really well done in this movie, its just not given the attention it needed.

Lois Lane – I wanna talk about Lois Lane before I get to talking about Batman because Lois is a very important part to Superman’s arc in this movie.

Now as far as characters go, Lois Lane is the most useless character and it’s a shame because Amy Adams plays a great Lois Lane. I think she was a great choice for Lois Lane and she did a good job in Man of Steel. And of course she gives a good performance, she’s just written horribly.

Lois is trying to investigate an incident that happens at the beginning of the movie where Lex Luthor’s mercenaries kill a lot of people in a village and Superman swoops in to save Lois. This event for Lois triggers thoughts of their relationship, which has really gotten serious in the two years between this movie and Man of Steel. Put aside the fact that nothing Lois does in this movie is of any consequence and she just ends up being a heel for everyone, that’s also an interesting idea. But it’s something that could have waited for a solo Superman movie.

Now going back to the incident in Africa, I get that they thought they needed some reason to trigger those Senate hearings orchestrated by Holly Hunter’s character, but didn’t we already have that with the events of Man of Steel? Furthermore, if the government did a thorough investigation, they’d know that all the people that died in that village were shot. It wasn’t like Superman killed them and that’s pretty obvious. And if they were trying to implicate that Superman beating the crap out of the mercenaries because Lois was in danger led to a bunch of people dying because of his actions, first off that wasn’t shown so its confusing, and secondly, that doesn’t really make sense at all.

Regardless of the nonsensical reasons for bringing up the question of what would humanity do if someone like Superman was a thing, it’s a great question, and something that was also a casualty of this movie just being packed with everything! But while Lois and Clark’s relationship should have waited for a different movie, this should have been at the forefront the entire time because this is at the heart of both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor’s motivations.

Batman – And of course we need to talk about Batman because I think Batman is the saving grace of this movie. His motivations are pretty streamlined and pretty simple. He wants to make Superman pay for what he did to Metropolis. He doesn’t trust an alien that could destroy the human race with a single stroke. This is quintessential Batman.

I’ve already talked about it but I loved Ben Affleck as Batman. I see him as the Batman now above Keaton, above Christian Bale. I loved Ben Affleck as Batman.

And again, the biggest complaint I’ve heard against Batman has been his obvious disregard for human life. In the past, it has been a pretty clear line that Batman has drawn. He will not kill.

This Batman… well he definitely kills people. And I’m not talking about the Darkseid dream because that was a dream… or an alternate reality… I’m not totally sure yet. But I’m talking about the Batmobile ramming straight into a car, tow cabling that car, dragging it with people still in it, then sling shoting it at another car full of people. I’m talking about Batman throwing a guy at another guy who is pulling the pin on a grenade, having the grenade drop and kill both those guys, and Batman doesn’t really do anything about it.

The best argument I can make for this Batman is, he doesn’t kill anybody… he’ll make sure you’re eating out of a tube and are basically a vegtable from the trauma of a horrible car wreck… but he won’t kill you. He’ll let people die by their own undoing like the grenade, but he won’t throw the grenade himself. He’ll shoot someone’s flamethrower so their own tools kill them, but he won’t shoot someone in the face. And he’ll brand criminals, something that has been said to be a death sentence in prison… but he won’t be the one killing you himself.

Now I understand the complaints with this, but I see it this way. Even if you don’t buy the weak argument that he never pulled the trigger himself, the fact that Batman does everything he did this movie just says that this is a war-torn Batman. This is a cynical and this is a brutal Batman. This is a Batman that gives no quarter and gives no mercy. And that is actually really interesting to me because this Batman is dangerous. This Batman, as much of a hero as he is, he provides a perfect foil for Superman who is new to this game, he is naïve, and he is hopeful. As much as you want to say the Superman from Man of Steel is dark and gritty, he is Mother Theresa compared this Batman, and I love it.

There’s the great line from the trailer where Bruce Wayne says, “If there is a one percent chance he is our enemy we have to take that as an absolute”. That is a hardcore Batman and its not until the end when he hears you have to save Martha that it all comes to perspective. As alien as Superman is, he still has some humanity in him and he can relate to the struggles that are obvious in Batman’s life.

And one more thing I’ll say about that is the fact that the movie leans into the fact that you know Batman’s origin story. Of course they show it again at the beginning but it’s leaning into the fact that you know that that is the catalyst for Batman putting on the cowl. And when an alien can appeal to his core like that, it makes for a great scene. I loved that scene.

Overall, I think Ben Affleck as Batman is the biggest strength of Batman v Superman for sure. And this is hard for me to say because I’m a Superman fan. But I loved almost everything about him. I liked him as Bruce Wayne. I liked his relationship with Alfred (played by Jeremy Irons) and I loved him as Batman. Ben Affleck is now Batman.

Lex Luthor – So in the story line of Batman v Superman, Superman is a mixed bag of mostly good intentions but muddled execution, Batman is mostly good things, and then there’s Lex Luthor.

Once again, I have to use this meme because it really does represent my thoughts on Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

Now I have a theory about Lex Luthor in future movies, especially with the reactions to this movie, but I’ll hold those off until I start talking about what I want to see in the future.

I will start off with what I liked. I thought Jesse Eisenberg gives a very different interpretation of Lex Luthor. Its not what I expected and while I don’t love all of it, I do have to commend Eisenberg, and Snyder for doing something different with the character and taking a risk.

One of my favorite scenes was the scene on top of the heli-pad where Lex Luthor’s plot is finally revealed to Superman. Now I’ll talk about the parts I didn’t like because there is a lot about that scene I didn’t like, but when he says things like, God’s flaws need to be revealed (I’m paraphrasing) and why he wanted these two to fight is done really well. It taps into the fear that comes with someone like Superman appearing and Lex Luthor has that fear in him. I saw that in Eisenberg and that was one of my favorite scenes. It took a character like Lex Luthor who has usually been a calculated businessman, and made him human and tapped into his fears and what people will do if that fear is realized.

Now the unfortunate parts about that scene were the fact that it revealed to Superman that he was the one pulling the strings behind this fight we were looking forward to. I wanted Superman and Batman to start this fight on their own volition because of their ideas; I didn’t want this fight to be Superman fighting because he needed to save Ma Kent. I wanted Luthor to have a manipulating role in that fight, but at the end of the day, Lex Luthor turns that fight into a one sided fight. Batman is fighting for his ideals and he’s all in. Superman is in it because he needs to save Ma Kent. If that wasn’t on the table, that fight wouldn’t have happened. While I wanted Luthor to have a role in this fight, I wanted to be more focused on Batman and Superman, two titans, fighting for ideals.

Luthor also falls into the trap this movie makes in that his motivations and character gets swept up in the muddled mess this movie is. Manipulating Scoot McNairy’s character was good and swindling his way through the Senate were really good, but at the end of the movie, you really kind of forget all of that was a thing. Which is a shame because Scoot McNairy could have been a great face of the movement in America who question Superman’s role.

The same can be said about Holly Hunter because she’s not really an antagonist in this movie but she represents a section of humanity that would be legitimately concerned about the presence of a god.

Unfortunately, all that gets swept away after the Capital building blows up. Which is odd because that should have been a cataclysmic event. Furthermore, to see how America would react to an event like that, especially an America where Superman and Batman exist is fascinating. And we all kind of forget that happens by the end of it.

The last thing that I will say about Lex Luthor is that the circumstances we leave him in at the end of this film really kind of shows that DC shot their load too early here. Eisenberg’s performance was already a little bit different and not really what I or a lot of fans wanted, but now that he’s basically gone nuts from the things he saw in the crashed ship from Man of Steel, (which I assume was the coming of Darkseid) Lex Luthor is now a broken man and the very little intimidating factors that Eisenberg brought to the table in the first place I think are gone. Batman v Superman was supposed to be a set up movie but right off the bat, one of the main villains is pretty much out of the game, and if he’s not, he’s more of a Riddler Lex Luthor than he is the OG Lex Luthor.

And this is the start of a number of things DC shot their load too early on.

Dawn of Justice – And that’s a good transition to the Dawn of Justice portion of this movie. Now while the Batman v Superman section of this movie definitely has its flaws, especially with Lex Luthor, if that had been the main focus of the movie, a lot of the stuff I’m going to talk about was taken out, and they refined a lot of the areas that I said were lacking due to the amount of stuff they took out, this movie would have been at a B to a low A range. Again, there are a lot of things I really like about Batman v Superman. I don’t know if it was studio intervention or Zack Snyder taking on too much, but I have to say, they had a good movie here.

There are a lot of things about the Dawn of Justice pieces that I liked and probably could have been kept in to set up for the franchise. But there are a lot of things that could have been taken out.

And just for clarification, I am legitimately seeing this movie as essentially two movies. Everything that I talked about before needed to be in a movie called Batman v Superman. Everything I’m talking about from here on out, even if I liked it, didn’t necessarily need to be in this movie.

Doomsday – Lets get this one right out of the way. They blew their load with Doomsday. Its not the biggest screw up on the movie, but it’s a close second. I’m not saying Doomsday shouldn’t have been in this movie at all. I’m okay with them pointing towards him. However, Doomsday should not have been in this movie.

Now I was one of the people who didn’t totally hate the reveal of Doomsday. I thought if they did him right, allowed for him to return for future films we’d be fine. I also thought his look was something that could be a first draft or he could evolve and he wouldn’t look so stupid.

They didn’t do Doomsday correctly. He still looked stupid.

The first thing I thought of when I saw Doomsday was what everybody else thought.

But when he first appears he looks like a cross between a cavetroll and a lycan from Underworld. And the fact of the matter is, there was no purpose for Doomsday to show up. Sure he was Lex Luthor’s way to kill Superman, but there was no build up, there was no Segway to Doomsday. It just went, hey guys, remember when Lex Luthor was messing around with General Zod’s body, well, it finally finished cooking. Time for it to wreck havoc!

And it was an incredible waste because instead of doing what they should have done (and even tried to do) which was tease Doomsday and then have Superman throw him up into space and have him come back in a later film, they killed him. Straight up shoved a kryptonite spear in his chest and killed him.

Now, I’m sure they will find some way or another to bring him back, but they had a perfect opportunity here to tease the creation of Doomsday, maybe have an end credit scene where you pan to the little egg sack he’s in and then he opens his eyes. Something, but this… this was just a waste. Now Snyder or someone at DC needs to come up with some convoluted way to bring Doomsday back because they realized they shot their load with this one.

But even if they do, it doesn’t forgive the worst mistake made in this movie, and that was the use of the Death of Superman storyline.

Death of Superman – Remember how with every bit of news about Batman v Superman that came out, I always let gave a little bit of an advice to Zack Snyder.

And I’ll admit, I didn’t when I saw Doomsday. But when I saw that, I thought, no they wouldn’t mess this up that much. They wouldn’t do something as stupid as try and cram in The Death of Superman into the end of Batman v Superman. In fact it wasn't even a thought that crossed my mind. I never thought that they would even try to cram in the 

But they did…

Pretty sure this isn't from the movie

And here’s the thing, as far as interpretations of that story line go, it probably wasn’t that bad of a way to execute that storyline. This is one of those things that I need to digest a little bit because when I first saw this, which was when I checked out of this movie.

Its not because I didn’t want Superman to die, its that I knew that he wasn’t dead.

From the minute Doomsday stabs Superman in the chest, to the point where the dirt on the coffin begins to rise, this movie was ruined for me. For so many reasons, but the first reason was because of the fact that I didn’t believe for a minute that Superman was actually dead. Even if you don’t know the Death of Superman story where Doomsday kills Superman and he rises from the dead like the Jesus figure he is, you’d have to be pretty dumb to believe that at the beginning of a Justice League franchise, they would kill off Superman. Even if you’re an average movie goer and don’t know that a franchise is being started, the Death of Superman thread was shoe horned in that it was really hard to believe that Superman was actually dead.

But the worst part about it is that this scene would have worked. The Death of Superman is a film that needs to be made because it is one of DC comic’s best comic book runs and one of Superman’s best. My problem is that they something great in the Batman v Superman storyline. They were already adapting a great Superman and Batman storyline in the Dark Knight Returns. A lot of this movie is adapted from that, and from what I know about it, it’s a great story to adapt. Why would you shoe horn in The Death of Superman when you already had something great with a BATTLE BETWEEN BATMAN AND SUPERMAN. Its like the studios didn’t have confidence that would be enough so they were like, we have to find the best story line we can to tag onto the ending… Um…. THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN!

But what’s more is that it was the top crime of DC in this movie because it wasted a great storyline like The Death of Superman. That story deserved its own standalone film. This could have been the Man of Steel sequel. I wouldn’t have wanted that but it could have worked. The main point is it wasted so much potential for future movies.

It wasted Doomsday, an iconic Superman antagonist that might as well stay dead at this point. It wasted Lex Luthor who is locked in jail losing his mind when he could have been scheming for future exploits against Superman, exploits that could have included Doomsday. And it wasted the Death of Superman storyline because it revealed so quickly that Superman is alive at the end.

Even if they do bring Doomsday back, they can never make a full movie based off The Death of Superman because those iconic shots of the casket being escorted to the memorial, juxtaposed with Clark Kent’s simple funeral, have already been used. Again, the scene was done well but it didn’t have the impact it needed.

If they had waited for a future film the audience would actually believe Superman could be dead. They would feel the impact of this death and they could even leave the ending open to interpretation because that could lead to a question mark ending and the possibility of introducing the Superman imposters. It all just seemed crammed in there and a waste of a great storyline.

And the part that worries me the most about that it really makes me question DC’s plan for the future of the franchise.

DC gave out their slate for future movies a year ago and it seemed like these movies were coming out in a particular order and DC had a concrete plan for the franchise. But just throwing aside a great storyline like The Death of Superman shows that this studio just doesn’t have a concrete plan of where they’re headed.

They have all these movies set like Wonder Woman, Suicide Squad, The Flash, and others, and these movies don’t seem to be in a particular order. It makes me question if these movies are being released strategically for story purposes, or if they are just throwing it at the wall and seeing what sticks.

If DC wants to be taken seriously, they need to know when to use the source material and how to use it correctly. There is a reason Marvel remains at the top and DC isn’t taken seriously.

The ending of this film brought the most concern and made me the angriest. I told a friend of mine that despite how incoherent this movie was, I still enjoyed the content of the movie and the action going on. I think if Doomsday and the last 30-minutes/ The Death of Superman storyline hadn’t been in this movie, I would have put the movie at a 70. Not a great film but entertaining enough for me to be excited for future films. But because of the Death of Superman storyline and Doomsday, I put this movie at the 50 range.

But like I said, there are still good things about this film. Since those are the biggest complaints I had with the movie, I will not be talking a lot of positive things.

And the first thing to mention that was a pretty positive element of the movie was Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman – I don’t quite know what the people were saying when they said that Wonder Woman stole the show. I’ll give it to her, when she shows up, there is this great soundtrack song going and it’s a lot of fun, but I would not say Wonder Woman stole the show by any means.

That being said, she was a lot more fun than I thought she was going to be.

I had my doubts about Gal Gadot but I always went back on the idea that perhaps she did something in that audition that made all the directors and producers say, “She is our Wonder Woman”.

And Gal Gadot has the benefit of breaking ground here. She is the first live action movie Wonder Woman. And from what we saw of her, I really liked her. I thought she was charming in the few moments she actually had lines, and she looks super bad ass in the outfit and when she’s fighting Doomsday with Batman and Superman.

She has a very limited part in the film and, the truth is, she could have not been in this movie and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference, however she did impress me. And the allusions this movie made to her movie were a lot of fun. I really got psyched for Wonder Woman because of this movie. You see a picture of her in 1912 and you see Chris Pine and it was very reminiscent of a Captain America like movie that is coming our way.

While it wasn’t in the movie, a recent picture of the new Wonder Woman movie makes the Amazons look freaking amazing. So with the picture in BvS and the picture that was released a few days before the movie came out, Wonder Woman looks to be a movie I am really looking forward to because it looks like a cool combination of Captain America and Thor. And since its DC it will have its own twist on it that really has the potential to be really good.

I really hope that her part in this movie wasn’t just a way to show off her best bits and hide her faults because the reality is, she has to give a leading lady performance in two years that will blow people away, and up until now, she hasn’t impressed too many people. I was excited for Wonder Woman from BvS, but I will reserve my true judgment until I see her take on her own film.

The only reason Wonder Woman is in this movie is because she is a way to introduce meta-humans and she is essentially the Dawn of Justice part of this story.

Intro of the Justice League – It is pretty obvious after this movie that The Justice League is going to happen. As a movie fan and someone who has been glued to any information that has come out of this movie, this is not news to me. But there are people that didn’t know that was happening and this movie really had an important job of not only introducing Batman, not only introducing Lex Luthor, not only having Batman and Superman fight, not only shoe horning in The Death of Superman, not only questioning Superman’s existence as a God among men, and not only and introduction to Wonder Woman, but this movie was suppose to introduce us to the existence of other Justice League characters, most namely Aquaman, The Flash, and Cyborg… for now.

And on face value, I really liked how they introduced those other characters.

Opening the files to each of those characters and seeing little videos of meta-humans doing incredible things was a lot of fun. It was great to finally see Aquaman on screen. It was great seeing The Flash. It was great seeing Cyborg. I thought that whole scene of Wonder Woman opening an email with those files on it was a great way to quick give a nod to the audience that Justice League is going to happen and then carry on with our business.

However, like most things in this movie, it was just not structured well. This moment happens right at the moment where Batman gets his armor on, he turns on the Bat signal and the audience is like,

And then they cut to Wonder Woman getting an email!

This is one of the many scenes that I just wish they had structured a lot differently. This was a good way to introduce other members of the Justice League it just wasn’t the right time. This was much more of an after credits scene, or a scene near the end. It took time to flat out stop an ongoing plot to say, HEY YOU! YOU COMING TO THE JUSTICE LEAGUE?!?! CAUSE YOU SHOULD! EVEN THOUGH IT’S NOT FOR ANOTHER YEAR (OR TWO) YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY COME SEE IT!

I’ve talked about this problem some comic book movies have and the truth is, comic book movies are better when they are just plain good movies and not just fan service. Fan service is fine and all and I don’t blame DC for doing something that Marvel is guilty of in a lot of their movies. But this was just at the exact wrong time and it felt awkward.

Yeah it looked cool, but as far as story structure goes, it was something that showed up out of nowhere and was never mentioned again in the entire movie. That’s not story structure, that’s advertisement. I expect advertisement before or after movies, not right in the dead center of a building climax.

And speaking of something that popped up in the middle of the movie and was never mentioned again…

The Darkseid/ Injustice Scene – Honestly, since I’ve seen this movie, I go back and forth with what I thought about this scene.

On one hand, the scene opens up like the middle of another movie suddenly turned on in the middle of this one. It’s so abrupt and such a different setting that it’s incredibly obvious that this is Batman’s dream. And when the whole sequence ends, it is really never brought up again.

I’m sure that this scene will come up again in later films and believe me, I’m excited for that, but in the context of this movie, this scene is so out of no where that its really kind of painful.

That being said… this scene is awesome!

First off you got Batman. I mean Batman was already really cool prior to this dream but he’s the leader of a rag tag group that is ambushed by soldiers wearing a Superman patch. And then Batman just goes nuts and yeah, this one there is no grey area you could say Batman is just seriously maiming people and not killing them, he straight up shoots people point blank. He straight up snaps people’s necks, he straight up murders people, and there is no question about it.

When he’s finally captured, Superman appears and this is straight up the Superman from Injustice: God’s Among Us.  This Superman just burns up Batman’s compatriots with his laser vision and says, “She was my everything!”

We assume he’s talking about Lois Lane as they pull a dream double whammy as he sees someone communicating to him through a portal. I don’t know if it was Ezra Miller as The Flash, I thought it might have been Robin or Jason Todd because it seemed like Bruce recognizes him. But he yells, Lois is the key.

The future of the Justice League is obviously going to delve into time travel and it could even delve into alternate dimensions. That’s amazing!

I don’t even care about the implication of Darkseid because all I saw was the Omega symbol on the ground and the parademons in the dream world. Sure Darkseid might be coming but what is more exciting is a real war between Batman and Superman and time/ inter-dimensional travel. That’s awesome!

But again, this scene happens and it is never spoken of again. It leaves no impact on the fight between Batman and Superman. Bruce Wayne doesn’t even say, “That was a weird dream” It’s just forgotten about.

And again it goes into the fact that I don’t want/need advertising in my movies. I am going to buy a ticket to your movie and I promise you, if you start making good movies, your audience won’t need in-movie advertising either.

What probably would have worked better would have been this scene and the email scene to be put at the end of this movie in place of the Superman funerals. Just put that scene at the end and put the idea of forming The Justice League in Bruce Wayne’s mind near the end. That way we’re focusing on the plot at hand and not interrupting an already busy movie with confusing scenes average moviegoers won’t get and would have more impact if they were at the end.

I really want to do this myself, or have someone else do it, but I want somebody to take a cut of this movie and structure it in a way that could make sense. There are parts that you could get rid of, and there are parts that you just need to put in a different place, and this movie gets fixed.

And that supports the majority of the blame going to Zack Snyder.

I have always been a fan of this guy and I really want to see him succeed. However, this movie’s largest problems were the structure. Regardless of studio influence, Zack Snyder saw the cut of this movie and said, “Meh, good enough!” I also blame David S Goyer and Chris Terrario for handing in a script with so much in it that the good parts are quickly forgotten about or made convoluted by the demands to get The Death of Superman in on this mess.

My overall feeling on Batman v Superman is a feeling of frustration. Mainly because this movie was such a mess, because it didn’t use the source material properly, and it forced me to turn my back on the decisions of Zack Snyder, someone I have defended vigorously. But the truth is, this movie was just not done well. There are other superhero movies that have come out this year that have been better (Deadpool) and there are superhero movies that are coming out that will be better (probably Civil War and X-men Apocalypse). The frustrating thing is that this movie has so many good parts about it and every time I see it, I see parts that really did work (Even parts that I didn’t get a change to talk about in this overly long post) and it makes me frustrated that the entire movie was not like those few perfect moments.  

Now that I’ve given my thoughts on Batman v Superman, stated what I think should have changed, and pointed out the good things it set up, I’m going to do a post focused on what direction I want the DCU to do in the future and what they should follow up on and how things can change to make up for the mistakes in BvS.

But for now I’m done with this thesis paper of a post. Let me know what you think? Have you seen Batman v Superman? Let me know your thoughts and you what you think could have been done better. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter we can tlak movies, and you can get updates on movie reviews and news that comes out of this blog!

I'll leave you with this. Its an oldy but a goodie. Its Badman v Superman. Enjoy!