How could I have done what I just did? Why would I give away the ending of "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" in the title of my column? Have I committed a grievous sin?
Actually, no. My headline has nothing to do with the results of the titular battle in the new DC Comics movie. Rather, it refers to the one character that emerges unscathed from this mess of a movie.
When DC Comics said Ben Affleck would be the new Batman, a cry of outrage rose from the Internet. To many comic book movie fans, no one but Christian Bale, or Michael Keaton, can be Batman. But – surprise, surprise – Affleck makes a good Dark Knight. All of the anger, angst, and humanity of the Caped Crusader comes through in his performance, and once he suits up, he's a formidable physical presence. He's not given the best material in "BvS," but he works as Batman.
Unfortunately, Affleck is the only consistently good thing about "BvS." Like the giant, roaring beast that comes to life near the end of the movie, the film is a mishmash of incompatible DNA, a cross-stitching of half-baked ideas.
Set mostly in Gotham, "BvS" centers on a feud that develops between Batman and Superman because, well, the screenplay said so. Of the two heroes, only Batman has a decent motive: He's angry about the mass casualties Superman caused during his battle against General Zod in "Man of Steel," and believes Supes needs to be taken out. Superman is mad at Batman because, well, the screenplay said so. Playing the two against each other is an odd incarnation of Lex Luthor, who wants the two superheroes to die so he can give his psychosis free rein.
If the filmmakers had focused on that core story and beefed up the weak bits, maybe "BvS" would have sort of worked. Unfortunately, DC Comics has an agenda, and likely forced the people who made this movie to also set up future films featuring other characters in the DC universe.
So, for every story beat about the showdown between Batman and Superman, we get an off kilter beat about the larger DC universe. Wonder Woman was awkwardly shoehorned into the movie and is an unnecessary presence, even though she has some fun moments. (Actress Gal Gadot should shine in the role when she gets her own movie next year.) And there's a disposable plot thread that introduces the rest of the characters that will form the team of superheroes known as the Justice League. Instead of building a strong foundation one movie at a time, like Marvel did with its stable of comic book heroes, DC is trying to build an entire structure all at once. It's a wobbly affair.
"BvS" isn't just a narrative jumble; it's visually muddled as well. For starters, it's too dark. A friend of mine who rarely complains about anything in a movie said "BvS" looks dim and muddy. Also, while there's one nicely choreographed fight (a battle in a warehouse), the rest of the action is routine, including the showdown between the headliners. It's not bad, but I was expecting more than a few dozen shots of two guys throwing each other through walls. As for Wonder Woman and her big scene, the action is chaotic and filled with clutter, making it nearly impossible to see what she's doing.
Finally, I have to knock Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Luthor. Eisenberg has terrific acting chops ("Social Network," anyone?), but in "BvS," he tears through scenes with the delicate grace of Godzilla stomping through Tokyo. He also plays the part too crazy, and without any of the cheeky humor Gene Hackman brought to the role in the original "Superman." Instead of being entertaining, he's merely bonkers.
A good deal of bad comes with very little good in "BvS." This is unfortunate. But now that DC Comics has established a foundation for its future films, maybe everyone there will calm down and start telling strong individual stories.
Maybe.
Two stars out of four. Rated PG-13 for violence, action, and sensuality.
Contact David at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.