Dawn of justice: Wtf

[Chris Knipp]

I think what you're talking about is provided in this VIDEO. I just searched "jesse eisenberg as lex luther" in YouTube. I gather the original Lex Luther comic book villain character was a bald tough guy, and Eisenberg delivers a more soft, feminine version of the villain. I feel your pain at the decline in machismo. I'm thinking the comic book image would suit Woody Harrelson. And Gary Oldman?

[Johann]

Yes that's the video- sorry for not replying sooner.

Yes indeed- why not Gary Oldman as Lex Luthor? or Brian Cranston? An actor with gravitas?
I saw Jesse Eisenberg on Jimmy Fallon's show recently, and the clip they showed of him confirmed for me that he is terrible in this role. He said on the show that his Lex is an "interesting character", but I don't find him interesting at all. Lex is usually bald, but has been known to wear wigs, so I don't really care about his hair. But his "feminine" qualities irk me, as does his voice and attitude, which strikes me as about as tough and intimidating as a constipated Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.
His casting is just plain wrong. It's mystifying. I don't know why they went with Jesse. He adds no depth to the role, nothing whatsoever in the way of cementing his legacy in an Iconic part. I don't believe in him as Lex. It's that simple. I'll be curious to see what people think of the movie (and Jesse's role and Ben Affleck's) but I'm not excited by this movie, as I've said. I'll wait for the DVD. Zack Snyder said that Ben's Bruce Wayne is great, so I wonder what's going on there. Jimmy Fallon mentioned that this movie is LOUD, with lots of Big-Bangs-and-Booms, so be warned.

[Chris Knipp]

It is of more concern to you than me. Jesse Eisenberg has gained more prominence than I'd have expected. He makes little physical impression, and is definitely a nerdy, neurotic type.

[Chris Knipp]

BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE has been widely panned. Its Metacritic rating is 44%. A.O. Scott of the NY Times says:

Review: ‘Batman v Superman’ ... v Fun?

The film, pitting Ben Affleck against Henry Cavill, largely serves as an extended trailer for a slate of coming DC Comics movies like "Wonder Woman."

The film I just reviewed, APRIL AND THE EXTRAORDINARY WORLD, has gotten raves: Metacritic 87%.

[Chris Knipp]

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Here is the essential from A.O. Scott's NYTimes review:

A diverting entertainment might have been made about the rivalry between these two muscle-bound paladins — a bromance or a buddy comedy, an album of duets. “Batman v Superman,” directed by Zack Snyder (“300,” “Watchmen,” “Sucker Punch,” “Man of Steel”), is none of those things. It is about as diverting as having a porcelain sink broken over your head (one of the more amusing things that happens onscreen). In keeping with current business imperatives, what Mr. Snyder has concocted is less a free-standing film than the opening argument in a very long trial. Its two-and-a-half-hour running time — not so much a “dawn” as an entire morning spent watching the clock in anticipation of lunchtime — is peppered with teasers for coming sequels.

I have seen the movie myself, but since nobody is paying me, I'm not going to write a full length review. What I will say in the context of our thread is that, Johann, you are absolutely right: Jesse Eisenberg is poorly cast as Lex Luther. That's not the only example of poor casting! Jeremy Irons as Alfie, for instance. Michael Caine accessed his Cockney origins in his voice, good for a butler, but Irons is too posh looking and sounding. Eisenberg might be scary in the way that a naughty teenager loose in your house might be scary, but not blockbuster superhero scary. He lacks the gravitas or the power necessary for a comic book villain. Notice Scott's put-down. His only comment is:

Jesse Eisenberg, as a tech-twerpy Lex Luthor, certainly earned some money.

I'll see if I can cull some lengthier critiques of Jesse-Lex from the reviews.

Bt apart from any commentary on individual casting, this is just a hodgepodge that lost my interest right at the beginning with its choppy series of short unrelated sequences and its barrage of CGI of collapsing buildings that we have seen a hundred times before. Just as Scott says, it's like watching a trailer, especially at first.

Eye in the Sky.

There is another film, EYE IN THE SKY, much higher rated (Metacritic 72) that opened in the cineplex, and I was watching it when I was called out for an emergency at home. I hope to finish watching it and write something about it. It's about the morality of drone kills, and it features the late Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren. Here's a summary:

Summary: Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground intel, Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), a UK-based military officer in command of a top secret drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya discovers the targets are planning a suicide bombing and the mission escalates from "capture" to "kill." But as American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage, a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone triggering an international dispute, reaching the highest levels of US and British government, over the moral, political, and personal implications of modern warfare.

[Chris Knipp]

Reviewers on Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luther.

Sometimes it's fun (or revealing anyway) to go through a bunch of reviews culled by Metacritic and compare them. What I find with this movie is that the critics get bogged down in summarizing (or making sense of) the plot, and don't have much time for more (not a problem of A.O.Scott, however). Perhaps they're just largely hacks grinding their way through a chore.

Not so Armond White, of course, this time in National Review, who once again shows his passion and originality in a review where he treats Snyder's film seriously as a great moral and cultural epic. I recommend what he has to say. White is already a fan of Snyder, and he says of Snyder's Batman, Superman and Lex Luther -- "All three characterization performances are, well, perfect." He treats the movie as, unlike Nolan's, full of contemporary social, moral, and cultural context, and thus he simply says of Jesse Eisenberg that he "played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and thus personifies the craven millennium." No other critic adopts White's exalted moral stance and contemporary perspective.

I'd agree with the Variety critic Andrew Barker that Eisenberg "provides the only real moments of levity in the film" (and this is what he contributes) and it needs them. It's hard finding any reviews that damn Jesse's Lex, except when they're being critical of the whole movie. He's Lex Luther's son, by the way, not Lex Luther. Most comments on him are positive while noting that his performance is a mixture of bits from his other roles; and that, while his character is a lynchpin in the plot -- he's the one who sets Batman and Superman against each other, he's also largely irrelevant.

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: " Only Jesse Eisenberg, as the maniacally evil Lex Luthor, seems to be trying to do something different with his role: He lets you see the wires short-circuiting inside the villain’s head when he schemes. But the movie has no use for him other than as a plot device, a mechanism to set certain events in motion, with no apparent motivation."

Ben Nicholson, Cine-Vue: "Jesse Eisenberg completes the triumvirate with Lex Luthor as a twitchy, screechy riff on his own Mark Zuckerberg. The colourful and kooky tech billionaire, all designer trainers and boiled sweets, is a nice twist for a modern iteration of Lex, but the writing is horribly unconvincing with regards to his intellect - throwing Euclid into a conversation won't pass for smarts. He's more awkward spoiled brat than charismatic genius."

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: "On the other hand, Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor is a breath of fresh air. Gone is the bumbling, semi-comedic version essayed by Gene Hackman and the Kevin Spacey’s more sinister one. Since this vision of Luthor is as a psychotic Mark Zuckerberg, who better to play him than the actor who did such a phenomenal job in The Social Network? Luthor’s endgame is obtuse but he’s brilliant and unhinged and that makes for a great supervillain. Plus, he’s got Kryptonite."

Nick De Semlyen, Empire Online: "Then along comes Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. Sporting a Banksy T-shirt, chomping on Jolly Ranchers and throwing random 'Mmm!'s into his maniacal monologues, the character is going to be an acquired taste — it’s not difficult to imagine him popping up in one of the Joel Schumacher Batman films. Less up for discussion are his schemes, which are both numerous and not massively well thought out, despite the fact he frequently appears to be omniscient. One explosive set-piece, in particular, is visually impactful but has no real effect on the story."

I might just add that while Eisenberg may come across as a lightweight, he is smart, and can convey smartness along with bad character. That is why he was chosen for The Social Network and was so good in it: smartness without an ounce of finesse or charm. In my experience Eisenberg can be truly scary: he is so in Kelly Reichardt's 2013 Night Moves (which I reviewed here), an excellent, little-seen film about eco-terrorists. But Eisenberg is a different person in that film, not the jittery twit he plays so often but someone dark and secret. I wish he'd play that kind of role more often.

[Johann]

I'm glad I'm vindicated. Ha ha.

So this is just a trailer for a slate of DC movies. I expected more from Zack Snyder, with such a huge film, what with Wonder Woman's first screen appearance and all...
It's done bonkers money at the box office, but I could tell that this one was bad months before we saw a frame.