Blade Trilogy Ranked

Blade Trilogy Ranked

1. Blade II (2002)

Thanks to the visionary Guillermo del Toro, Blade II is the best we’ve seen of the vampire slaying badass on-screen thus far. The visuals are stunning, the story is thoroughly engaging, and it really feels like a gothic horror/action movie. There are a lot more characters this time around and many are just throwaway, but Blade and Whistler (his savior and mentor) are further explored and developed and who can forget Ron Perlman as Reinhardt? Furthermore, Blade II proved just how well Guillermo del Toro could handle comic book material, which he would further demonstrate with the Hellboy movies.

2. Blade (1998)

Before Spider-Man in 2002 and X-Men in 2000, there was Blade. Technically it's a Marvel movie, but not so much a conventional superhero movie (or what’s considered conventional now a days). Although it deviates from its source material (what comic book movie doesn’t?), it’s fun, action packed, and features Wesley Snipes at his best. Although a lot of the CGI hasn’t aged well, it still holds up 20 years later otherwise. The opening action scene at the vampire nightclub gives moviegoers the perfect introduction to Blade too. 

3. Blade: Trinity (2004)

Oh, man is Blade: Trinity a train wreck, but at least it’s a fun train wreck. At its best it’s campy fun, at its worst it’s totally cringe worthy. Despite Dracula being the villain this time around, somehow it all feels less ambitious and stagnant from a creative standpoint. Wesley Snipes doesn’t look like he’s having much fun in this installment either, which makes sense considering the behind the scenes drama. However, Ryan Reynolds steals the show, as does Parker Posey and Triple-H. At least it seemed like they were having fun.

Men in Black Trilogy Ranked

 

Believe it or not, the Men in Black film series is almost 20 years old. Loosely adapted from the comic series of the same name, Men in Black was a huge commercial and critical hit back in 1997. It’s the reason a whole generation fell in love with both Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. A lackluster sequel followed in 2002 and ten years after that, another sequel followed, and it was awesome. With all this talk of a fourth film, one that might crossover with the Jump Street series, I decided it was time to revisit the Men in Black trilogy.

Men in Black (1997)

This was one of my favorite films growing up as a wee lad. I immediately fell in love with it after I saw it in the theatre and re-watched it numerous times on VHS. Everything works in this film, the pacing, the humour, the acting, the action, and the effects. Smith and Jones play off each other well in the lead roles and Vincent D’Onofrio makes for a bumbling, yet somehow terrifying antagonist. The supporting cast is great too, especially Linda Fiorentino as Dr. Weaver (who later becomes Agent L). She was at her prime here and it’s unfortunate that she didn’t return for the sequel. In terms of replay value and quality, this one remains the best of the trilogy.

Men in Black 3 (2012)

A lot were weary about this one (including me) and for good reason. However, it turned out to be way better than anyone was expecting. The time travel element works and it isn’t over complicated. The addition of Josh Brolin as a young Agent K is the film’s strongest point, but Michael Stuhlbarg is just as great in his role as Griffin, an alien who can see multiple realities. He’s such an endearing character and he adds so much to the film. Jemaine Clement makes for an entertaining antagonist as Boris the Animal too. The film also has a surprising amount of emotional weight, especially at the end. There’s an emotional gut punch you should see coming, but you don’t. Like the first, it moves along at a brisk pace and it does a great job of further developing the characters of Agent J and Agent K.

Men in Black II (2002)

I enjoyed this one a lot when it first came out, but it hasn’t held up well. It’s not terrible and I don’t hate it, but I feel as a whole it’s lackluster and that it was a missed opportunity. Although it has solid pacing like the first, everything else doesn’t feel right. The humour is inconsistent and sometimes cringe worthy (especially those moments with Frank), the story is rushed and underdeveloped, and it feels like both Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones weren’t too thrilled to be there. As far as the positives go, both Rosario Dawson and Johnny Knoxville are good in their roles, but they feel wasted at the same time. Rosario Dawson is set up as Agent J’s love interest, but it feels forced and falls flat because it’s not developed. Johnny Knoxville also just completely disappears from the film in the second act. I guess he was busy doing Jackass stuff or something? Lara Flynn Boyle makes for a potentially good villain as Serleena, but she feels underwritten. It almost feels like this sequel was made more to appease the studio than fans, which is a bummer.

Ghostbusters (1984), Ghostbusters II (1989), and Why No Ghostbusters III?

The Ghostbusters remake has finally hit theatres after about a year of online bitching, whining, moaning, fighting, and trolling. It became the most polarizing film of all time before it even hit theatres! There was so much hate for the remake from the get go and the poor quality trailers only fueled the hatred of the haters. The supporters of the remake, mainly feminists and SJWs didn’t do much to help matters by playing the “if you're against the remake, then you’re sexist” card. Personally, I believe that both sides had their share of general douchebaggery. However, I won’t discuss the remake any further in this post, because my focus is on the original, its sequel, and the third film that never materialized.

Ghostbusters (1984)



It’s pretty much been one of my favorite films ever since I was a wee lad, Hell, I even tried to make a proton pack out of Legos during those years! In my opinion, the film’s only gotten better with age largely due to the memorable characters, the comedic chemistry of the cast, the unique, paranormal premise, and the fact that the film is just so damn fun. Venkman is a lovable wise ass, Egon is a lovable nerd, Ray is a lovable, overly enthusiastic geek, and Winston is a lovable average joe. The supporting cast is great too, especially Sigourney Weaver as Dana, Rick Moranis as Louis, and Annie Potts as Janine. The effects still look solid and convincing over 30 years later too. Certain moments actually frightened me as a wee lad, but it was all part of the fun. This is one of those films that made me fall in love with film in the first place, so it’ll always have a special place in my heart. Also, I didn’t know till I was older what Ray was really busting in that dream sequence.

Ghostbusters II (1989)



The hate is strong with this sequel for some understandable reasons, but it’s still far from being a bad film if you ask me. Is it basically a retread of the original plot wise? Yes, but is it boring? Hell no, it’s just as entertaining as the original. The comic chemistry between the actors is still there even though Murray doesn’t seem too thrilled to be in it during certain scenes. Is the cynicism and skepticism of the people of NYC confusing? Yeah, they’re really shitty to the Ghostbusters early on, but it adds to the film and the negativity that’s feeding the slime under the city! The best moments in my opinion are the ones with Louis. I’ve been a huge fan of Rick Moranis ever since I saw the original Ghostbusters and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, and it was great to see him return. He’s hilarious, especially during the courtroom scenes. He proves himself to be an inept lawyer, but his heart is in the right place the whole time, which adds to the humor. Also, he suits up at the end! Speaking of the ending, I quite enjoyed it. Sure it’s a rehash of the ending from the original, but seeing the crew come to the rescue and walking around NYC in the Statue of Liberty is a pure geekgasm moment, dammit! Even though it’s not an entirely creative sequel, it’s not deserving of its negative reputation either if you ask me.

Why No Ghostbusters III?

Why did Ghostbusters III never materialize? Well, technically it kind of did, in video game form in 2009. I never played the game myself, but I’ve been meaning to for seven damn years! And why did it never materialize on film? Perhaps it was never meant to be. Murray was never interested in doing another one (unless they killed him off early on) and it felt like us fans were merely getting trolled with all the rumors and “promised” shooting dates. One rumored idea for a sequel that they should’ve gone with was the older Ghostbusters passing the torch to a new, younger generation of Ghostbusters. It didn’t come to be, and the death of Harold Ramis in 2014 made the possibility of a third film even more unlikely and unnecessary. Doing a sequel without Ramis and possibly Murray just wouldn’t have worked. There’s a lot more to the production hell that was Ghostbusters III, and maybe that would make for a cool documentary someday?

Independence Day (1996) & Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

It’s 20 years later, and the aliens are back and looking to start another fight. I’ve always been a fan of ID4 because it left a lasting impression on me. I enjoyed it immensely when I first saw it as a wee lad. It’s fun, cheesy, and a good summer popcorn flick. I remember being ecstatic when my folks picked it up on VHS from Walmart many years ago when they were selling off all of their VHS tapes. For about a decade or so it sat around collecting dust, that is until I decided to find it, dust it off, and pop it in my newly acquired VCR for a re-watch, because it helps to revisit the first before you see the new one, right?

Independence Day (1996)

It’s the prototypical summer blockbuster/popcorn flick that’s more focused on spectacle than substance, but damn is it entertaining. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, and Will Smith are all great and charismatic in their respective roles. Will Smith must have had a thing for aliens back in the mid-90’s, because he starred in Men in Black just a year later. Brent Spiner is great in his small role too as the geeky Dr. Okun. Also, who can forget Judd Hirsch and Randy Quaid? The effects were great for the time and have held up mostly well 20 years later (some of the CGI looks a little cheesy, but nothing awful). The aliens themselves look really cool too. As for the story, it’s not particularly great and there are plot holes galore and elements feel contrived, but the fun factor kind of makes you overlook them. There’s a lot of cheesy dialogue too, but damn if Pullman’s empowering speech doesn’t get you excited and pumped. Overall, it’s just a fun alien invasion flick. If you like 50’s sci-fi films, you’ll more than likely enjoy this one. Also, it wouldn’t make for a bad double bill with Tim Burton’s purposely cheesy Mars Attacks!, which was released the same year.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

The aliens are back for round two, and it’s mostly unimpressive and cheesy as hell (like that cheap spray cheese you buy in the can, not the higher quality stuff). Like with its predecessor, it’s more focused on spectacle, and the story suffers because of it. Also, was there a need for so many characters? There’s nothing wrong with introducing a few new faces, but at least develop them. Jeff Goldblum and Brent Spiner return and give solid performances, as does Bill Pullman. Will Smith’s presence as Captain Stephen Hiller is missed, and Jessie Usher doesn’t quite step up to the plate as his stepson, Dylan Dubrow-Hiller. He lacks the charisma of Smith, but to be fair, matching the charisma of Smith is no easy feat. Maika Monroe is good as Patricia Whitmore, but why/how Mae Whitman didn’t return is a bit of a head scratcher. Also, this film suffers from the “let’s set up future sequels” formula by including some contrived story and plot elements. There’s absolutely no subtly. Are the effects good at least? Yeah, they’re good, but they lack the “wow” factor like the effects in the first one. We as filmgoers have grown accustomed to seeing overblown CGI summer blockbusters, so it’s nothing special anymore. Is it entertaining at least? Of course, but it lacks the charm of its predecessor. If you liked the first one you’ll probably enjoy this one, but don’t expect it to leave a lasting impression, because it won’t.

What Went Wrong With X-Men: Apocalypse?

So far, 2016 has proven to be both a great and disappointing year for superhero films. Four of the six 2016 superhero films have already had a theatrical release, and honestly, only Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War were great. The other two, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and X-Men: Apocalypse were underwhelming and lacking. As a huge fan of Batman, Superman, and the X-Men, it’s a huge disappointment to me that these films weren’t better. They certainly had potential, but it was squandered. As a summer blockbuster film for the casual moviegoer, X-Men: Apocalypse is sure to entertain, but for a fan of the comics, it sucks and is sure to disappoint. What exactly went wrong with X-Men: Apocalypse? Well, read on and find out, but only if you’ve seen the film, because there are a butt ton of spoilers ahead!

The main problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that the film didn’t even live up to the “Apocalypse” part of its title. Yes, the mutant Apocalypse is in the film, but does he ever feel like a genuine threat? The answer is: not really. The pre-credits scene set in ancient Egypt does a solid and respectable job of setting him up, but it’s all downhill from there. He just rambles on about how he wants to take over the world and how he despises humanity. Makes for a complex and compelling villain, right? We’ve never seen a villain with motivations like that, right? Ugh, what a waste of Oscar Isaac. To be fair he does a good job given what little he has to work with, but he’s one of the best actors currently working. Almost anyone else could’ve played such a generic and lazily written villain. Also, it’s hard to take Apocalypse seriously when he looks like a lousy Power Rangers villain. If they had made Apocalypse more layered and complex, he would’ve made for a much better villain, and the film would’ve been much better because of it.



In addition to Apocalypse himself being underwhelming, the Four Horsemen are also underwhelming, with the exception of Magneto and arguably Storm. Psylocke and Angel are completely wasted because they’re given no development. Olivia Munn is gorgeous as Psylocke and she looks like Psylocke from the comics, but she only has ten lines of dialogue max. Also, after the climatic battle, she just walks off the screen and has that “screw this” look on her face, which is highly appropriate. As for Angel, we see how he lost his wing and Apocalypse repairs it for him, but once he joins up, he doesn’t do much else. He’s supposedly killed in the third act climatic fight, but ultimately, his fate is left up in the air. Essentially, Angel and Psylocke are just lackeys of Apocalypse. As for Storm, she’s a little more developed, but it felt like she was too easily convinced to join Apocalypse. Also, you know she’s going to have a change of heart anyway given how she’s been portrayed in the franchise before, so ultimately it doesn’t feel genuine. Magneto is really the only Horseman who’s turn feels genuine because of what happens to him and what we know about his character. He settles down and starts a family, but after he’s betrayed and his family his killed, he loses trust and faith in humanity once again, so he becomes one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. However, his turn at the end is predictable because of the deep-rooted love and respect he has for both Mystique and Professor X. If the other Horsemen had been more fleshed out and developed, it also would’ve made for a better film.

Another problem with the film was the script and the plot holes, or how I like to call them; “How the hell does this make any sense?” The glaring problem with this new X-Men timeline is that nobody ages! They all look the same as they did in First Class, which was set in the 60’s. This film is set the 80’s. Are these mutants doing yoga in their free time or something? Also, what the hell’s up with Mystique? She’s great as a character, but in this new timeline, her loyalty is so back and forth between Charles and Erik. At the end of the film, her loyalty is with Charles once again, but for how long? As for Havok, did he really serve any purpose in the film? Sure, he’s the older brother of Scott Summers (Cyclops), but his death in the film is ultimately meaningless. Scott mourns over him for only one scene and then he forgets about him. As for the Wolverine as Weapon X bit, it’s an awesome scene and is the kind of the Wolverine we need to see more of the screen, but it makes no sense for him to be in the film. At the end of Days of Future Past, we clearly see that Mystique has impersonated Stryker, which gives us the fair assumption that Wolverine hasn’t fallen into the wrong hands after he was fished out of the river. However, Stryker still managed to capture Wolverine and experiment on him somehow. It’s obvious the makers (not to mention the studio) felt obligated to have Wolverine in there just because it’s an X-Men film, so they just shoehorned him in. Great sequence, but it was unnecessary and it felt forced. Also, what the hell happened with all of those nuclear weapons that Apocalypse had fired off? Are they just floating around aimlessly in space, or did they get stuck orbiting the Earth? It was just glossed over and not brought up at the end. As for the romance between Charles and Moira, it’s laughably bad. He’s more creepy in his attempts to woe her than charming. And lastly, the whole subplot with Magneto being Quicksilver’s father falls flat on its ass. There are a few moments of dialogue here and there that touch upon it, and it pays good lip service to the comics, but it just doesn’t go anywhere. It ends up just being played for laughs, and the end Quicksilver’s just like, “Eh, no big deal.” Talk about lazy writing. With a more focused script, it would’ve been a better and slightly more entertaining film.

As a whole, X-Men: Apocalypse is a hollow and underwhelming film, but with some good elements that deserve a mention. The acting is solid, especially from the actors playing the younger versions of the popular X-Men characters, and Michael Fassbender. He’s made the role of Magneto his own just like Hugh Jackman has done with Wolverine. The Quicksilver scene at the Xavier mansion is awesome, and Evan Peters kills it in the role once again. Also, the climatic fight is fun enough, but the end result is predictable. Charles going into the mind of Apocalypse was a nice touch, though. Although it wasn’t an overstuffed, incomprehensible mess like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was, it’ll leave you highly disappointed if you’re a fan of the comics and the franchise as a whole. Fox seemed to have corrected the course with First Class and Days of Future Past, but now they’re making the same mistakes again. Mutant lives matter too!

Everbody Wants Some!! (2016)

Two years after the release of his highly ambitious and engrossing film, Boyhood, Richard Linklater is back. Linklater’s work has been fairly consistent, especially these past five years. Every film he’s made in this five-year period has been of exceptional quality, and Everybody Wants Some!! is like a gift to us filmgoers. It’s a spiritual sequel to Linklater’s 1993 cult classic Dazed and Confused, and it’s a film that has a lot of heart, humor, and intellect.

Everybody Wants Some!! is set in 1980 Texas, and it follows a group of college baseball players trying to navigate their way through life and have fun the weekend before classes begin. One freshman baseball player in particular, Jake (Blake Jenner) is given the full experience of college life.

Although it’s not a straight up sequel to Dazed and Confused, Everybody Wants Some!! is still very much in tone with Linklater’s previous film, and in the best kind of way. Everything you loved about Dazed and Confused is here: drugs, partying, booze, socializing, period appropriate music, and philosophizing. The only difference is that it’s all within a college setting as opposed to a high school setting. Like with Dazed and Confused, it all feels true to life. These characters are believable, and the interactions they have feel true to life. Blake Jenner is great in his role as Jake, the film’s protagonist so to speak. He’s like a fish out of water when he arrives at college, but over the course of the weekend, he becomes one of the guys. He even sparks up a romance with a cute girl, Beverly (Zoey Deutch). The two have chemistry and because of that, the romance that forms between the two feels genuine. When it comes to writing sharp dialogue and characters, Linklater is one of the best.

In regards to the supporting characters, they’re all great. The two standouts are Willoughby (Wyatt Russell) and Finnegan (Glen Powell). Willoughby parallels Wooderson from Dazed and Confused in the sense that he’s a free spirit. He just wants to get high, play baseball, and live it up while he’s in college. He’s just an awesome character and Wyatt Russell totally kills it in the role. Finnegan on the other hand is kind of a dick, but he’s a fun dick. He gives Jake and the other freshman a hard time, but his heart is always in the right place at least. He’s a fun character and Glen Powell totally runs away (or runs home?) with the character. If you loved Powell in first season of Scream Queens, you’re going to love him here. On the other hand, there’s McReynolds (Tyler Hoechlin), and he’s a legit dick. He parallels O’Bannion from Dazed and Confused. He’s still an entertaining character however because he’s realistic! Overly macho and confident athletes are like a dime a dozen in real life.

As for the look and the feel of the film, it’s a total nostalgia trip. It captures the late 70’s/early 80’s perfectly. The clothes, the hair, the music, the environment, it’s like a stepping into a time warp! It was also a smart decision on Linklater’s part to explore the various music genres that were popular at the time such as country, disco, and punk rock! The punk rock club scene especially is a lot of fun.

Overall, Everybody Wants Some!! is signature Linklater and some his best work yet. It’s the best kind of spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused because it hits the same emotional and intellectual chords. It’s a film that touches upon how to enjoy life, question it, but not take it too seriously either. Remember, we’re all here for a good time, not a long time!

What Went Wrong With Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? (Spoilers!)

It’s been close to a month since Batman v Superman hit theatres, and it’s proven to be one of the most polarizing superhero films ever made. Critics for the most part hated it while fans and moviegoers have been divided. One side of the extreme absolutely loathed the film, and some have even gone about starting a petition to have Zack Snyder removed as the director of the upcoming Justice League film. The other side of the extreme has been praising the film as being “great,” and those folks are more optimistic about the future of the DC cinematic universe. And where do I stand? Honestly, I’m right in the middle. I didn’t hate the film, but I didn’t like it either. Overall, I thought it was a mess with some bright spots here and there. What exactly went wrong with the film? Well, read on and you’ll find out.

The first and most blatant problem with Batman v Superman is that it was simply too big of a film. What do I mean by too big? I mean too big in the sense that there was way too much going on. It felt like four films rolled into one two and a half hour film. It’s like it wanted to be a Man of Steel sequel, and a Batman vs. Superman film, and a stand-alone Batman film, and a Justice League set up film. The end result was a film that as a whole felt overstuffed and often incomprehensible. How could this have been avoided? Well, WB could’ve gone the better and more patient route by making this a Man of Steel sequel, or a film solely focused on the conflict between Batman and Superman. Personally, I thought it would’ve been cool if they had made this a straight follow up to Man of Steel with Clark Kent/Superman having to face up to the consequences of his actions. Lex Luthor (or Lex Luthor Jr. technically, I suppose?) could’ve been introduced too. Then they could’ve followed this up with a stand-alone Batman film, one that could’ve been like Burton’s Batman, not a reboot like Nolan’s Batman Begins. Clark Kent/Superman could’ve had a minor role in this, which then would’ve led up to the big Batman vs. Superman film with Lex as the main villain. This approach in my opinion would’ve made more sense and made the character motivations better because quite honestly, the character motivations in Batman v Superman made no sense. Also, there should’ve been a stand-alone Wonder Woman film before she was introduced into the DC cinematic universe. That’s not a blow to her as a character or anything because she was well portrayed by Gal Gadot and kicks some ass in climatic battle, but already having her established as a character before she gets involved in the action would’ve helped us understand her motivations better. We also would’ve been a little more invested in her too. Also, the introductions of the other Justice League characters such as The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman were laughably lazy. I mean a flash drive of video footage? What the hell WB? Overall, the point I’m trying to make is that WB got impatient solely because they’re trying to play catch up with the MCU, which is a shame because it ruined what could’ve been a great superhero film.



Another problem with Batman v Superman is that it had too many damn dream sequences! There’s nothing wrong with a few here and there, but damn, they were excessive here. One of the dream sequences in particular was a bizarre and sloppy one thanks to some poor editing. Bruce was doing something on the computer (some private stuff maybe?) and out of nowhere, it becomes a dream sequence. In said dream sequence, it’s the future, and Superman has become evil for reasons unknown. Bruce has to fight off his goons, but he’s simply outnumbered and he gets captured. He eventually wakes up back in the bat cave only to have The Flash appear and tell him not to let Louis die (I think?) or else Superman will turn evil. Then Bruce wakes up. So basically he was having a dream within a dream? What the hell was up with that? Also, there was all that flashback stuff about Bruce’s parents being killed. Not like we haven’t seen that before. What pissed me off personally was how they had Thomas Wayne take a macho swing at the mugger who had them all at gunpoint? That’s not how it happened in the comics, plus that’s a dumbass move that puts everyone in danger! It’s hard to believe David S. Goyer wrote such unfaithful crap. Also, there was a dream sequence where Clark visited his dead adoptive father on a mountain that was rather pointless and didn’t fit in at all. I don’t even know why I’m mentioning it actually. And the solution to the dream sequence problem? Cut out practically all of the dream sequences.

Yet another problem with Batman v Superman is the lack humor. Granted, DC comics have always been more serious than Marvel comics, but it’s nice to have some humor here and there to lighten the mood. The jabs Perry White made against Clark throughout the film where the only moments that seemed “humorous,” but they weren’t particularly funny and they felt more forced if anything. Also, there was that whole bit with Lex telling the senator (played by Holly Hunter) about how you shouldn’t “piss in a jar and call it granny’s peach tea.” Was that supposed to be funny? I don’t know, it was more of a “what the hell?” moment if you ask me. The solution? Add more humor, and don’t force it either. You don’t have to go overboard like they did in Batman & Robin, but it’s nice to have a little so the film as a whole doesn’t feel so brooding and depressing.



A final problem with Batman v Superman is that the script honestly kind of sucked. As I previously mentioned, at least four films worth of material was crammed into one two and half hour long film, so the film as a whole was overstuffed. In addition to that, there were plot holes galore and character motivations made no sense. What the hell were Luthor’s motivations exactly? Why was his plan to make Superman so damn convoluted? Why was his plan to make Superman and Batman fight each other so nonsensical? What was his next step after unleashing the practically unstoppable Doomsday upon the world? It was all rather murky. Also, why the hell did Superman choose to stop Batman when he was in that car chase and not take the time to see whom exactly Batman was chasing after? I mean Batman chases after criminals after all, was that not worth at least a quick look, Superman? Also, Wayne’s motivations were quite murky too. It’s understandable that he was pissed at Superman for all the destruction he caused at the end of Man of Steel, but it’s not like the Bruce Wayne/Batman they’ve introduced in this cinematic universe is a white knight either. He kills people and brands criminals with the bat symbol, which is effectively a death sentence for those who receive it. So both Batman and Superman are flawed heroes in this universe, which is fine, but it makes the conflict between the two peculiar. Then there was that whole “Martha” coincidence, don’t even get me started. Talk about some terrible writing there. The solution? Write a better script that’s more focused!

However, despite of all the problems with Batman v Superman, it is worthy of some praise in my opinion. First of all, the visuals and action sequences are phenomenal. They typically are in Zack Snyder film, although they tend to take front seat to the other important element a film should have: a good story. Second of all, the acting in my opinion was actually damn good. Henry Cavill has been criticized in his role as Clark Kent/Superman, but he’s fine if you ask me, and so is Amy Adams as Louis Lane. Ben Affleck made for a good Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jesse Eisenberg made for a great Lex Luthor. Eisenberg’s portrayal of Luthor has polarized both audiences and critics alike for good reason, but I dug it. A lot of it might have to do with the fact that I’ve been a fan of Eisenberg since his Adventureland and Zombieland days. I really related to the characters he played in both of those films, so I found myself liking him as Luthor. Gal Gadot was great as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, although her accent slipped in a few places. It’s still awesome that she finally appeared on the big screen, and her first stand-alone film that’s hitting theatres next year is something to look forward to. The supporting cast is once again solid like it was in Man of Steel. Newcomers Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons are both great as Senator Finch and Alfred respectively. Also, the suit Batman wears to fight Superman looks phenomenal, exactly like it did in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. Excellent job there!

Overall, Batman v Superman is a flawed and underwhelming film that didn’t work, but it’s still nowhere near being the worst superhero film ever made. WB being impatient and overzealous is really what did the film in. Batman and Superman are two of the greatest comic book superheroes ever, and they always will be. I was a huge fan of the both of them growing up, and I’ll always remain a huge fan of them. I also think Superman gets too much flack these days. Yes, he’s overpowered to an extent, but he’s still a great character who’s been well portrayed on both paper and screen. I loved the way they portrayed him in Man of Steel sans the Jesus imagery. The dude’s basically an alien struggling to find his place. He’s like a metaphor for those of us who struggle to fit in period. They definitely deserved a better film, but not all hope should be lost quite yet. Let’s hope that WB learns from this and corrects the current course, so that we can have a DC cinematic universe that’s on par with the Marvel cinematic universe.