Justice League Review (2017)

Grade: D+

While watching “Justice League” you can easily discern which version of the film is Zack Snyder’s and which version is Joss Whedon’s, who was brought in late to finish the movie after Snyder had to step away due to a family emergency. Snyder’s picture can be found in the stylish slow motion action scenes and the muted, air brushed visual aesthetic. It can also be glimpsed in the thematic gloominess.

On the other hand, Whedon’s “Justice League” is contained mainly in the script: the silly one-liners and comedic repartee between our heroes that eases some of the gloominess. The movie doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are a few funny moments--one involving Wonder Woman’s (Gal Gadot) honesty lasso and the cocky Aquaman (Jason Momoa). But you can’t just tape some goofy zingers on top of a muddled and all around uninspired screenplay and expect a good movie to emerge. I laughed occasionally but I mostly groaned as the bland, messy narrative unfolded.

“Justice League” features yet another one-dimensional super villain, a mythical alien with a Viking helmet named Steppenwolf, (Ciaran Hinds) who wants to turn the world into a flaming hellscape, literally. His army of loyal demons resemble mutant zombie Man-Mosquitos and can apparently smell fear; a point that’s brought up twice and not really expanded upon. Steppenwolf uses portals to travel around the globe. He’s looking for three powerful energy cubes that will help him carry out his master plan. It’s obligatory for superhero movies to contain at least one portal and one meaningless Macguffin. “Justice League” has at least five portals and three Macguffins.

Anyway, while Steppenwolf is off doing his bad guy thing the rest of the world is in a dark place, due to Superman’s (Henry Cavill) death in last year’s “Batman v Superman.” The opening credit sequence is a sad montage of people being sad about Superman’s death, racists harassing an Arab shop owner in Metropolis and a homeless man looking sad with a sign that reads: “At least I tried.” There’s unrest and very little hope, a perfect environment for Batman, (Ben Affleck, looking like he doesn’t want to be here) Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller, whose entire performance consists of smart alecly comments) to join forces.

But they’re not teaming up to ease the pessimism and pain in the world, they’re teaming up to face off against a rote CGI villain in a climactic CGI battle and they have to recover three CGI MacGuffins. The apocalypse brewing at the center of “Justice League” is hollow and contrived. The comedic interjections further undermine the film’s serious intentions.

Maybe the most surprising thing about “Justice League” is that, at just under two hours not including credits, it’s not long enough. I’m all for action movies being leaner but this is clearly a big film that’s been severely abridged in the editing room. There’s a lot of ground to cover—establishing new bad guys, introducing new superheroes and having superheroes join forces. These are crucial narrative stages that have been squeezed into a small time frame and as a result the movie is in a constant state of fast-forwarding.  So much of “Justice League” is rushed, convoluted set up that our heroes don’t get a chance to gel as a unit and find a consistent comedic rhythm.

“The Avengers” worked because Disney played the long game. There were five movies that focused on the individual Avengers before they teamed up. Warner Bros. is trying to force things and it shows. “Justice League” has to do the work of four movies. Brand new character Cyborg goes from being a conflicted outsider who doesn’t want to join the Justice League in one scene, to an essential part of the team a couple scenes later, taking on tasks like he’s been a member for years.

Chunks of the film are so condensed and disjointed. A section involving Super Man in particular feels gutted, like the remnants of a larger sub plot. Emotional scenes between Superman and girl friend Lois Lane (Amy Adams, in a thankless role) are sappy and tonally inconsistent. When the team enters a top-secret base there are awkward lapses in logic and continuity. Maybe a two and half hour Snyder cut wouldn’t have been better but this trimmed down version doesn’t work.

Ultimately, I walked out of “Justice League” feeling apathetic more than anything else. The movie sets out to establish the core unit of the Justice League and it does so in the blandest way possible. There is comedy, sure, but it increasingly feels strained and out of place. The blending of Whedon’s wit with Synder’s aesthetic doesn’t feel organic. “The Avengers” was a satisfying commingling of heroes we had gotten to know, the result of years of build up and anticipation. “Justice League” is like a dull, tonally uneven TV pilot. But Whedon can walk away from this experience saying, “at least I tried.”

Nocturnal Animals Review (2016)

In “Nocturnal Animals” (Tom Ford’s elegant and disturbing meta-noir) I found myself liking the fictional “story-within-the-story” far more than the story around it.

Amy Adams plays Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner stuck in a loveless marriage. One day she receives an advance copy of a novel by her ex husband Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). Sheffield has dedicated the novel to Morrow, telling her in a note that she provided the inspiration he needed to write it. She sits down to read the book and we’re transported into the fictional narrative with her. The film jumps back and forth between the novel and the “real world.”

The novel tells a fairly standard male revenge story (set in the dusty, wide open plains of Texas) in which a sensitive, nonviolent man named Tony (also Gyllenhaal) is emasculated by a trio of sadistic rednecks, losing his wife and teenage daughter in the process and learns to embrace a dark and violent dimension of himself he didn’t know he had. Although, Ford’s handling of it is damned gripping, equal parts stomach churning and exhilarating.  

During one of the first scenes, as Tony and his family are driving on a deserted highway at night and the trio of rednecks follow them and play chicken with their car, you know what’s coming. A feeling of nausea creeps into your stomach, your palms sweat. Like any great thriller director, Ford drags the action out, keeping you in a constant state of anxiety. I usually take notes during screenings but while this internal narrative was going on I was petrified-- unable to take my eyes off the screen or force my hand to write on my notepad.

Admittedly, I’m a sucker for any kind of revenge story and this one has all the right pieces, executed with a visceral precision: a deliberate pace, a conflicted, angry protagonist on the brink of exploding into a murderous rage and a truly despicable villain-- Aaron Taylor-Johnson is terrifying as the lead redneck. Oh and Michael Shannon as a “lets-do-things-off-the-book” police officer. Shannon is the MVP here (honestly, when is he not?), calmly menacing in that typical Michael Shannon way. His bulging, unblinking eyes on their own are enough to make the hair on your neck stand up.

Though, when the action focuses on Morrow outside of this “fictional” world, “Nocturnal Animals” is not so thrilling. Morrow can’t stop thinking about the novel in her day to day life and through flashbacks we learn about her and Sheffield’s romantic history and why they broke up. Through these flashbacks and the novel itself, a portrait of Sheffield gradually takes shape and it’s fun trying to figure out his mysterious motives: why did he dedicate this book to her? Unfortunately, this outer story is still tedious to sit through. While the inner narrative has a forward pulsing momentum, this one just flatly sits on the screen…literally so.

There are a lot of scenes of Morrow sitting around, staring pensively into the distance. She stares pensively into the distance while in the shower…or in the bathtub…or at work. She’s either thinking about the novel or thinking about her past. Turns out that constantly watching scenes of a person sitting around and thinking doesn’t make for compelling cinema, even if it is Amy Adams. Adams does what she can but her performance stays infuriatingly one note. It got to the point where whenever the film would cut from Tony’s story to Morrow’s I would breathe a sigh of frustration and eagerly wait for it to go back.

On its own, Tony’s novel would make for a solid, well-executed piece of pulp revenge cinema. The framing narrative involving Morrow and Sheffield provides the southern fried tale of vengeance with an intriguing meta/psychological layer but the sheer dullness of its execution ultimately makes “Nocturnal Animals” a mixed bag.

 C+

Arrival Review (2016)

In “Arrival,” a fascinating blend of meat and potatoes procedural and lyrical, high concept Sci fi, director Denis Villeneuve once again demonstrates his knack for crafting gradual onscreen tension and anticipation. He’s a filmmaker who gently grabs you by the collar of your shirt and firmly pulls you into his world, not letting go until the final credits roll. Then again, you don’t want to him to let go.

Villeneuve knows that sometimes the build up to an event can be more exciting than the event itself. Case in point: going to meet a mysterious alien race for the first time.

When Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), a linguist, gets recruited by the government to communicate with a race of alien beings that have landed all around the earth Villeneuve drags the process out in the best possible way. We see the initial helicopter ride from Banks’ house to the military encampment in Montana. We see the prep work: Banks and her partner Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) are briefed on their mission by Colonel Webber, (Forest Whitaker) they take the necessary shots and pills. They put on their Hazmat suits. They drive from the military encampment to the alien vessel, a massive oval shaped structure levitating a few feet off the ground. The team is raised up into the vessel via cherry picker. We observe the perplexed look on Banks and Donnelly’s face as they adjust zero gravity for the first time. And then…they meet the creatures.

“Arrival” isn’t too sluggish; it’s not like it takes an hour or a half hour to meet the aliens but Villeneuve clearly savors the journey getting to them as much as the encounter itself. If you were going to meet and converse with extraterrestrial beings how would you feel? You’d probably feel an overwhelming combination of nervousness, excitement, uncertainty and curiosity. A million questions would flash into your mind at light speed: Who are they? Are they friendly? Am I going to die? Are they little grey men like they were in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?” Can they speak English?

Through its deliberate pacing (punctuated by long takes and slow pans/zooms), “Arrival” brilliantly captures the anticipation and suspense that would go with encountering an alien species for the first time. And this drawn out style persists through the rest of the picture, keeping you fully absorbed in the narrative.

Adams conveys that initial anticipation beautifully, giving a rich and strongly nuanced performance. Banks is intelligent and strong willed, yet not opposed to expressing emotion. When she gets raised up into the vessel she begins to breathe heavily—adjusting to her Hazmat suit and the new environment, as well as trying to shake off her nerves. In this moment (and in others) we see vulnerability in her. Adams is understated but authoritative, confident in herself and her ability to do the job well, while at the same time haunted by some past emotional baggage (that we see via fragmented flashbacks).

After the initial encounter “Arrival” settles into a patient, elegant rhythm, as Banks and Donnelly attempt to establish a communication system between the creatures to figure out (along with research teams from around the world) why they’re on earth. For the most part, the picture assumes a straightforward procedural structure, with the mystery gradually unfolding.

Accompanying this hunt for the truth is the film’s thought-provoking focus on the importance of communication, especially in a time of global crisis. If we don’t communicate, or rather, if our attempts at communication break down, it can lead to rash decision-making, which can then lead to chaos. Furthermore, the film is about how the fear of the unknown can also lead to careless decisions. Trying to figure out a way to communicate with aliens is a daunting, complex process that takes a long time. However, the government is impulsive and afraid (afraid of a hostile invasion), wanting results right away and when they don’t get what they want it causes them to seek out hasty and potentially damaging solutions like mobilizing armed forces. In other words, we’re often too impatient, we want solutions right away, and that impatience can easily lead to conflict, whether it’s global or intergalactic.

 In one of the best scenes, when the government is feeling the pressure to deliver results, Banks proceeds to break down the complexity of the question: “what is your purpose?” explaining that they have to start out with simpler sentences and teach the aliens the various aspects of grammar. Language is messy and complicated, as is translation and even the smallest mistake (a wrongly interpreted phrase or word) caused by pressure or fear can lead to a breakdown in communication and make way for more conflict.

Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer distill these heavy issues (and countless others) into a tense genre thriller structure that’s accessible without being heavy handed.

The ending is peculiar in the way that is provides an answer of sorts to the mystery (along with a major twist that feels deserved) but said answer doesn’t completely make sense right away. Even now, I’m still trying to put all the pieces together, which is a good thing. That being said, I think the final climactic action (involving a phone call) that leads to resolution on a global scale is a little sudden and clumsy in execution.

I have a few other minor issues but they don’t really matter; “Arrival” is a challenging, highly entertaining Sci fi drama/thriller executed with near flawless precision and craftsmanship. Villeneuve continues to prove he’s one of the best directors working today.

B+

Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice Review (2016)

Zach Snyder’s “Batman v Superman” is the latest superhero extravaganza, this time courtesy of Warner Bros and DC. It’s a follow up to Snyder’s 2013 Superman reboot “Man of Steel” and Warner’s attempt to jumpstart a DC superhero universe (ala the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that will eventually lead to two “Justice League” movies. Unfortunately, Warner Bros is trying to establish this universe too quickly (the “Justice League” movies, as well as a few other standalone DC hero movies are in varying stages of production) and as a result this latest picture suffers dearly. Simply put: there’s too much going on in “Batman v Superman.” Snyder adheres to the “quantity over quality” philosophy. The picture is a disorganized, unfocused, overstuffed and emotionally stagnant mess that turns into a nonstop barrage of mind numbing action.

It’s a shame because the concept at the center of this mess is somewhat compelling. I know I’m in the minority in saying that I’ve grown tired of all these superhero movies, primarily because most tend to follow the same derivate cookie cutter plot involving a one-note villain and a major city being leveled. So, the idea of two superheroes having a scuffle is far more interesting to me than a superhero having to face yet another super villain hell-bent on world domination/destruction. Yet, because so much is crammed into the movie (including cameos from additional superheroes. In terms of the main narrative, they serve zero purpose. But hey…Aquaman!) the conflict gets lost in all the noise and commotion. I guess it’s not enough to simply have Batman and Superman fight.

As far as plot is concerned…there’s a lot of it (and it adds up to squat). We’ve got Batman in Gotham City and Superman in Metropolis…both in the same universe! Batman, aka Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck, unshaven and grouchy) is older and more cynical this time around; his senses are dulled, he’s tired of fighting crime that never seems to end and he’s a cold blooded killer. He’s also been directly affected by collateral damage due to Superman’s silly tendency to destroy buildings during his fights with baddies in Metropolis. For what it’s worth, Affleck’s jaded, washed up Batman is by far the best, most refreshing thing about the movie because it’s at least distinct from other onscreen incarnations.

As for the Kryptonian himself, Superman (Henry Cavill) is…there too.  He’s still flying around in his red cape and blue tights, at times resembling a wax figurine and posing as a reporter for the city newspaper by day, doing a lot of intense staring and brooding either way. That’s pretty much it. He’s the same old Superman. Cavill was so charming and funny in last year’s spy comedy “The Man from U.N.C.L.E,” but here, he has about as much personality and charisma as a block of Kryptonite. The conversations about him (by various supporting characters and Batman) are far more interesting: is Superman a god? Is he the savior we need? Or is he a false prophet? All thought provoking questions, except the movie only grazes the surface. We get Holly Hunter as a Metropolis senator giving heavy-handed speeches in front of committees and a media montage where various commentators discuss the “Superman Question.”

What else? Well, Superman’s main squeeze and fellow reporter Lois Lane (the lovely Amy Adams, doing the best she can with thinly written character) runs around in a pants suit doing some investigative journalism and needing rescueing from Superman (seriously, she gets captured like three times). We have the mysterious Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg, essentially doing an exaggerated version of his standard fast talking/wise ass persona with a smidge of The Joker thrown in. His performance feels forced most of the time and the character never quite cuts deep enough) that wants to get his hands on some powerful Kryptonian artifacts. There’s also Batman’s faithful confidant Alfred (Jeremy Irons) and…Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is also shoved into the narrative, only because she’s got her own movie coming up soon (don’t worry, she was shown front and center in the trailers. No spoilers here). I guess it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t fit in with the central narrative. But one thing’s for certain: she has a neat costume.

OK…I’m exhausted.

“Batman v Superman” is overkill in practically everyway. There are too many characters and too many plotlines, which causes the first twenty-five minutes of the movie to be nothing but tedious exposition. It has to tease plot lines and characters for future movies. There are multiple glowing objects that are recovered and/or change hands throughout, a bizarre dream/simulation sequence that feels like it was left over from a first draft of the screenplay, and powerful beams of energy that shoot out of various facilities (powerful beams of energy have become common place in superhero movies for some reason). The movie even manages to go overboard on symbolism and social commentary. We get some 9/11 imagery, lots of Christ symbolism (it is Superman after all), allusions to bitter and disillusioned war veterans, all handled with the subtlety of Superman’s fist and shoddily inserted into the rest of the proceedings. There’s even an homage to “King Kong” near the end because, why not? In other words, the picture tries to cover so much material that it can’t really explore any of it in any real depth or nuance. It has to keep chugging along to shove in even more stuff.

What’s most frustrating is that, despite the convoluted plot and overabundance of material and characters, it adds up to virtually nothing.  Like most other superhero movies, it all comes down to a dull final clash between heroes and a power hungry super villain (again, apparently, Batman fighting Superman isn’t good enough) in a climax that goes on for what feels like an eternity. There are about four fight scenes crammed in to this single sequence, a surprise bad guy, ticking clocks, two damsels in distress and lots of city damage.  Seriously? Was there any sort of editing, either at the script stage or in postproduction? It’s the cherry on top of this chaos sundae.

Even from a technical standpoint the movie is a dud. The action sequences are horrendous--poorly shot using a mix of shaky hand held cam and disorienting crane/dolly work. The editing is muddled and nonsensical; we constantly lose track of what’s going on. And of course, there’s too much action. The cinematography by Larry Fong is simply atrocious, using dull, murky tones of grey and muddied, phony-looking CGI backgrounds. Meanwhile, Han Zimmer’s thundering orchestral score is overbearing and obnoxious. It’s used much too frequently and occasionally drowns out the dialogue.

The bigger issue here is that “Batman v Superman” wants to be big and epic in every scene, as if the filmmakers were worried they would bore the audience (well, they bored us anyway). Rarely does it settle down and let quiet, more intimate moments between characters play out. The few romantic scenes between Superman and Lois feel cheesy and forced. As is the case with most of Snyder’s movies, “Batman v Superman” is ultimately more committed to style and spectacle rather then character and narrative substance.

The longer “Batman v Superman” went on (and the more stuff it introduced) the more I grew to despise it. I walked out of the theater seething with rage, angry that I had to sit through such a long, hollow, bloated mess that wants so badly to be about everything that it’s not much about anything in the long run. It’s one of the worst superhero movies to come out in a while and I never want to see or think about it again.

D