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.”

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

The Man From U.N.C.L.E Review (2015)

British director Guy Richie has lost his way of late. I appreciated his attempt to inject the “Sherlock Holmes” story with adrenaline, making Holmes (played by Robert Downy Jr.) into an action hero. Though I still found myself caring more about Holmes as a genius detective, unraveling complex mysteries than whether he could beat someone up or use a gun. So, while I liked 2009’s “Sherlock Holmes” it also turned into another tedious action movie. Its sequel “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” was more of the same: more cheeky Downy Jr., more repetitive action and an uninspired storyline.

 The slick, Cold War era spy throwback “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” (based on the T.V show) reinvigorates Richie’s career. He still directs with his trademark kinetic style and sense of cool but this time action and coolness take a back seat to character. The movie is still very cool but that style wouldn’t matter much if the central spy duo (played by Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer) weren’t strong.

With perfect skin, neatly combed hair and a rich, soothing voice you could listen to for hours, Cavill plays ultra suave American spy Solo. Cavill’s performance is basically the polar opposite of his brooding self-serious turn in “Man of Steel.” Cavill displays near perfect comedic timing and exudes charisma in every scene. Solo handles just about every situation with wit and grace, practically strutting from one scene to the next. Even when he’s strapped into an electric chair about to be experimented on by an ex Nazi surgeon he retains a level of cool. In the span of just two movies Cavill demonstrates impressive range. Who knew the bland Superman actor could be so smooth and funny.

Meanwhile (sporting a thick Russian accent) Hammer plays the intense Soviet spy Illya. He’s an intimating six feet five inches and, in the words of another character, “built like a power lifter.” Illya isn’t someone you’d want to get cornered by in a dark alley. Even Solo is a little taken aback by his presence at first; “he ripped the back off my car!” he exclaims in puzzlement after Illya chases him down a dark Berlin street on foot like the T-1000 from “Terminator 2.” Though Hammer also gets to be playful and charming. For example, when German mechanic and fellow spy Gabby (Alicia Vikander) is trying on clothes to go undercover as his wife, Illya intervenes, claiming that a Soviet wife wouldn’t wear the clothes she’d tried on and proceeds to pick out the outfit for her. Hammer hasn’t done much of note since his duel performance as the Winklevoss twins in “The Social Network.” Here, he gives his first accomplished leading performance.

Together Cavill and Hammer are immaculate, playing off each other wonderfully and giving the movie balance. We don’t want too much of the suave agent, just as we don’t want too much of the menacing one. Richie keeps the focus of the picture on their turbulent, banter-ey dynamic. As enemy spies being forced to work together Solo and Illya are constantly trying to one up each other-- putting mini tracking devices in each other’s stuff or seeing who has the best gadget to cut through a chain-link fence to sneak into a top secret facility. At the same time, through their begrudging rivalry, we begin see a common understanding between them that makes Solo and Illya into an effective team. They’re both talented at what they do and acknowledge their status as puppets in a war between two major countries. The nationalistic tension still exists but there’s a mutual respect.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about “U.N.C.L.E.” is the action and how little there is. Both “Sherlock Holmes” features were full of relentless, nonstop action but in “U.N.C.L.E.” the action is used sparingly and effectively. There are only about five  major action set pieces that are well spaced throughout the movie’s one hundred and sixteen minute running time. And they play second fiddle to the Hammer/Cavill relationship, instead of being the focal point of the film.

On top of that, Richie finds new and clever ways to capture the action. Boat chases have become such a tired cliché in action cinema; in “U.N.C.L.E.” however, Richie stages his boat chase from Solo’s perspective as he sits in a truck, watching Illya fend for himself on the water. The song “Che Vuole Questa Musica Stasera” by Peppino Gagliardi plays on the truck radio in the background. The sequence is funny and the change in perspective makes it fresh and exciting. We also see innovation in Richie’s handling of the nighttime raid on a small island. What could be a generic, fifteen-minute raid sequence is turned into a brief five-minute montage using split screen (sometimes the screen is divided in up to eight small segments). Again, Richie makes this standard action scene feel new and makes good use of the tacky split screen device.

Also worth singling out is the lively and diverse soundtrack. In addition to using existing songs from the time period, Daniel Pemberton’s original score pays homage to the old school orchestral spy scores by Jerry Goldsmith and Lalo Schifrin, as well as other cinematic legends like Ennio Morricone. The score is a crucial component-- enhancing the action and strengthening the film’s fun, chic 1960’s atmosphere.

The actual plot of “U.N.C.L.E.” involving Nazis, nuclear warheads and the retrieval of yet another flash disk, is slight but the movie is light on its feet and the attention to character is so strong that it doesn’t matter much. The only major flaw in Richie’s movie is that Alicia Vikander is underused. Vikander is another rising star that has been on a roll this year (in movies as diverse as “Ex Machina” and “The Testament of Youth”). While Gaby certainly isn’t weak, she’s forced to be a third wheel to Solo and Illya. Vikander still gets to be funny and sexy but the character doesn’t play as prominent a part as our two male spies.

Even so, “The Man From “U.N.C.L.E.” is smart, funny, stylish character driven picture. There’s just enough action to keep things from feeling repetitive or draining. It’s Guy Richie’s best film since “Snatch” and it showcases the immense talents of three up and comers. I’ll be curious to see how the film does at the box office. I don’t think there’s much interest (among young movie-goers) in a “Man from U.N.C.L.E.” movie and the marketing makes it look like yet another generic action heavy spectacle.

B+