Justice League

The DC Universe has been a controversial playground for film fans and comics aficionados. With the exception of this years earlier entry in the collection, "Wonder Woman", the films have not had a great deal of enthusiastic reception. That has not kept them from being financially successful, but it does leave fans dissatisfied and ready to jump on the next film with every misstep. "Justice League" will probably continue that trend instead of reversing it. Many of the issues that cause hesitation are still present in this entry, but despite the mistakes, this film was satisfactory in accomplishing some of it's goals but mostly in entertaining the audience. It may not be "Wonder Woman" but it is a step up from the murkiness of the other films that preceded it.

Goal number one, get all of the characters in this Universe introduced and started on their own stories. "Man of Steel" was supposed to do that for Superman, and it did set up a lot of the material that has followed, but it was stodgy and grim and lacked the spark that made the Christopher Reeve films fun. I hope it is not a spoiler to say that Clark Kent/Superman does play a significant role in this movie. More on that later, I'll put a mild spoiler warning on that section for anyone who wants to go into this blind. Batman got reintroduced in "Batman vs. Superman", a film that was convoluted but had some great spectacle and the irresistible appeal of the two superheroes dueling.  Ben Affleck's Batman was more impressive in that film, here he seems to be less engaged. It's not until near the finale that Affleck starts to give the character the energy we want. Gal Gadot can do no wrong this year. She is the character that we most want to see and she leads the narrative strings around so that everyone else can follow what the heck is going on in the story. I'm not tired of seeing her fight CGI bullies yet, but at least she gets a more complete one to fight here than she did in the stand alone film.

Three new characters get introduced in a more elaborate manner than the brief thirty seconds they were afforded in the prior film. You would think with so much to do that the story lines would begin to feel over stuffed. That's not the case with these three characters. Judicious editing and story telling give us just enough on each one so that we feel they do really exist in this Universe, but we don't dwell on their backgrounds more than is necessary. I suspect that Jason Momoa as the Aquaman will be a big hit with the fairer sex. My wife liked him quite well and his belligerent humor was one of the things that helped make this movie a little more fun.  Ray Fisher has to perform under prosthetic metal and through elaborate CGI accoutrements, but he still makes a solid impression. His character has the most detailed backstory and includes actor Joe Morton, a face that should be familiar to fans from his association with another cybernetic character. The breakout character however has to be Ezra Miller's Flash. Like a yopung Justin Long, Miller comes across with puppy dog enthusiasm and a sense of humor that is sorely needed in this Universe.  There is a mid-credit stinger that you will want to wait for that gives him one more chance to make us laugh.

[Something of a mild spoiler ahead]

The best thing about this film however is the restoration of a sense of humanity to Superman. In the initial stages of his return, we are threatened with a repeat of the grim countenance of Kalel and it looks like "Man of Steel" will repeat. Somewhere after Henry Cavill reunites with Amy Adams as Lois and Diane Lane as his mom, Clark Kent returns and Superman becomes something much closer to the character we love.  When the final battle begins, Superman shows up and it feels like Christopher Reeve is being channeled by Cavill. There is a spot where he gets to smile and suddenly, this feels like the movie I have wanted all along. I don't mind the series being more serious, but our main characters have to give us something to root for. Finally, I think the series is getting to that point. I like the work of Zack Snyder for the most part, but he does have those crutches he relies on for drama in the fights. He is the credited director although Joss Whedon took over in the last few months when Snyder had to step away from his project for personal reasons. Maybe Whedon lightened things up a bit, but this is definately the film that Snyder has been nurturing to fruition for several years.

The antagonist in this story is another CGI creation, but there is at least some backstory and it does not feel rushed. The transformation of the planet into a world that the character wants is  mechanical in nature, but it was tempered with a little family story to make the stakes more meaningful. If everything is about the end of the world every time, it is going to get a little boring. This brief side trip from time to time reminds us of the human stakes involved. This is the sort of thing that seemed to be missing from the earlier films. The stakes have to be something that we can relate to or else it is just going through the motions.

I enjoyed the film far more than the second wave of negative word would have me expecting. Early reviews were promising, round two was wholly negative, and now I have seen it for myself. They have not solved all of the problems the DC franchises have faced but they did make great strides into turning this into something more than just a money making enterprise. If the new characters are given a chance to shine a bit more and Superman keeps up the more optimistic demeanor, I will be able to look forward to more of these films. It is probably a good idea to allow some other directors a chance to invigorate these stories, but the Snyder lead trilogy has set a better framework than many critics have asserted. Good news for film fans, it is also just two hours.

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

We live in a binary world. At least we do in the current times. People play games like "Would you Rather?" or they swipe left or right. With the rise of social media, the desire for instant gratification has encouraged the most extremes of views to be the ones we pay the most attention to. The whole idea of social comparison has been reduced to "It's Awesome" or "It Sucks." Well my friends, on this blog we don't play by simple binary rules. Even though the title of today's subject seems to suggest we come down on one side for one hero or the other, the world is more complicated than that, and so is this movie. If all you are looking for is an instant up or down, prepare to be disappointed. "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice", is not the holy grail that comic book fans would hope for, but it is also not the POS that so many haters on the internet are willing to tag it as. As a story it is something of a mess, as a movie it is a puzzlement, but as a spectacle it is pretty impressive and there are some other small things to recommend it.

Here is another example of the twofold choice that is foisted upon us by our social peers: D.C. or Marvel? The success of the Marvel Universe in the movie theaters over the last few years is a credit to patience and planning as well as good writing. Starting with "Ironman" the comic worlds of the Marvel stories have been brought to life and linked very effectively. Even though there are glaring failures with Marvel Product, that can usually be attributed to rights issues which have resulted in three different studios trying to manage the comic universe. Disney now owns the most successful of these and with "The Avengers" has merged them together into the kinds of elaborate story lines that readers of the comics have enjoyed. Cross pollination has produced some fun moments and at least two great films, "The Avengers" and "Captain America: The Winter Soldier".  Certainly, the D.C. comics, with the most iconic Super heroes of all times could do the same. The Christopher Nolan Batman films are pretty much a separate property that Warner Brothers would like to merge into a cohesive Universe with Superman. 2013's "Man of Steel" was an attempt to restart that franchise with an eye to building a comparable comic universe to the Marvel films.

One of my major complaints about the new version of Superman is that the story and the character are so serious as to lack any joy at all. Henry Cavill has a sly smile that could be used effectively if the screenwriters and the director choose to do so, if any of you saw last year's "Man From U.N.C.L.E." you know what I am talking about. There is really only one moment when Clark Kent/Superman seems like he might be enjoying his time her on Earth, of course if you came home to Amy Adams sitting in the bathtub, you would smile too. That's about it though. There should be more by play between the main characters and there is not much. The only other time a smile might cross your face when this film is running is when Wonder Woman shows up and the two guys simply look at each other and "wonder" where she came from. Superman gets duped a couple of times in the film and that feels like a problem also. Cavill's best scenes are with his co-stars from the original film he appeared in, otherwise he seems to be brooding and angry most of the time.

Now you expect Bruce Wayne/Batman to brood, after all he is "The Dark Night". One of the things that should surprise the pessimists about this film is the performance and portrays of Batman by Ben Affleck. A redeeming feature of this film is that it accurately suggests that there is an aftermath to the wanton destruction that took place in the earlier film. This story connects Bruce Wayne to those events as an eyewitness and a victim. Batman's frustration with taking down criminals is exactly right, they are like weeds, as soon as you pull up one, another rises to take it's place. This Bruce Wayne is suspicious of Superman and willing to try to take a stand, even though Alfred and the rest of us can see that it is a little bit driven by tunnel vision. Affleck does a good job playing a conflicted and grim Bruce Wayne as he tries to figure out what plots are afoot and what role Superman plays in them. There is a scene at a fancy reception given by Lex Luthor, that allows Afflect to play detective and try to flirt a little. Just like Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne is given an insufficient amount of time with his personal life to feel much of a stake. Jeremy Irons is a great choice to play Alfred, but he is very under-utilized in the movie and that is a pity.

Neither character gets much of a chance to make an impact on us emotionally because so many things are happening in the story it is hard to keep track. Kryptonite is being discovered, as is Wonder Woman, and Lex Luthor is plotting three different things at once, some of which feel unnecessary in the long run. There is an investigation into Superman's intervention in a terrorist camp and a disgruntled victim of the war with Zod is part of the intrigue. In the course of two and a half hours, there are a half dozen story lines and they are interspersed with flashbacks and dream sequences so often that it is sometimes difficult to tell how it all fits together and what actions really are supposed to be taking place. It does not help that Jesse Eisenberg has been directed to play Lex Luthor as a victim of ADHD with a touch of paranoia. Comic book fans who complain about the villain monologuing the hero, should appreciate the frequency with which Eisenberg simply can't complete an idea out loud, or in one very obvious case, coherently. This film is really a straight drama with very little in the way of heroics. The drama is complicated and the characters are shown in such murky circumstances that it is hard to fathom motive even when the actions are explained. One person in our group put it in a straight forward way, "Why can't Superman and Batman see that they are being manipulated and simply kick Luthor's ass?" That's a good question and it is not an easy one to answer.

So, at this point we have that the tone is grim, the plot is convoluted, the characters lack much character, and it is long. So whats there to recommend? Well, the look of the film is impressive in scope and original in conception. Batman's toys are integrated into the story well and as I've already said, Afflect does a fine job with an older, discouraged and angry Batman character. There are two sequences with Superman's family that are pretty solid, and Amy Adams is naked in the bathtub. So that's an inventory of what's good about this film, is there anything great in it?  The best element of the film is Wonder Woman, who is kept mysterious for the most part and arrives on the scene in a moment spoiled by the trailers for the movie but still able to give us a thrill. Gal Gadot was in four of the "Fast and Furious" movies and I don't remember her at all [OK, I've only seen three of them myself, but she was in all three of those],  here you will definitely remember her. She is shooting a stand alone "Wonder Woman" movie and her presence in this film, makes me want to see that. I  also like the seeds that have been planted for future films featuring characters from the Justice league. The problem that I foresee is that the tone of each of those stories will be as down as these first two films have been.

We need a little less sturm and drang, and a lot more character. The central characters don't have to be cartoons but they could be more human by having some emotion other than being pissed off. Two charismatic actors are being played with by director Zack Snyder. He has them as his action figures to move through an afternoon of a child's version of a story, "fight-explosion-fight-chase-fight." The screenwriters need to take a lesson from the films from the past that used these characters. We should like them because they have strength but also personality. A shot like Michael Keaton in gravity boots or Christopher Reeve discovering that phone booths have become phone kiosks, would go a long way in creating some goodwill for these projects. Spectacle is enough for now, but if you want people to stay engaged for a dozen more films from this universe, you better give us more to care about.

300: Rise of an Empire

When the original Zack Snyder version of 300 was released seven years ago, we got a fresh approach to making a graphic novel into a movie. The combination of animation, CGI, background art and live action was intriguing and visually stunning to look at.  Since that time there have been other films that have aped that look, including new works by director Snyder himself. While they have had varying degrees of success, it is safe to say that "300" itself still stands as the model for this vision. Now there is a sequel/prequel/simultaneous story told using the same techniques and while not directed by Snyder, the screenplay is co-written by him and co-produced by him and it perpetuates the franchise pretty well even if it is not as strikingly original as it once was.

I should be ashamed that I do not know my Greek history well enough to pick out all the enhancements, modifications and outright fabrications that this story must give birth to. I am wise enough though to know that you should never let a movie be your source of historical knowledge. To do so would lead you to believe that Abraham Lincoln killed vampires prior to freeing the slaves. There is enough of an historical tapestry to make this movie interesting without having to make any of it credible. Themistocles as historical political and military leader clearly was instrumental in the Greek repulsion of the Persian forces. The visual of him in this film involves the usual chiseled good looks that all the soldiers had in the original film.  Artemisia is another historical figure that is blended into the story and gives us a terrific antagonist in the form of Eva Green. It seems unlikely that Themistocles and Artemisia met on board her ship and conducted a sex exchange as violent as most of the battles depicted in the movie, but who am I to complain when the film makers manage to give us lusty images of the two of them engaged in violent naked conflict.

This movie is all about the bloody battles and staging them with gleeful mayhem galore. There was more CGI blood in this film than I have ever encountered before and it actually looked pretty good. I went cheap and skipped the 3D version and I'm a little sad for that because I could see the manipulative uses of swords and blood splatter and spears and arrows, and it made me want to see that coming off the screen into my lap. Where "300" focused on the Spartans, this film takes in all of Greece and manages to make the Athenians look pretty bad ass on their own. Most of the battles fought in this film take place on sea going vessels laden with slaves and fighting men. The cleverness of the Greeks in war strategy is emphasized and there are some smart tactics similar to the lesson that  King Leonidas learned and used in the original story. There was plenty here to exploit for random violence and chaotic throat slitting. The political intrigue is told in an aggrandized style that echos from the previous film as well. Never speak when you can shout, all speeches must be aggravatingly inspiring and when visual story telling can't fill in the blanks, rely on breathy narration from secondary characters.

None of this is to suggest that the movie is not worthwhile. It is in fact a swell piece of pulp entertainment that plays to the blood-lust of the audience. Some story points make seem repetitive but how many times can you watch a dismemberment and not begin to think this looks familiar?  If that is the kind of thing that brings you to a movie like this, then you will be very satisfied because all of it is staged well and easy to see and enjoy. Instead of the hyperkenetic, shakycam shooting you see in most action films, the visual images here are carefully planned and shot with an eye for lingering death and anticipatory swordplay. You can follow what is happening and enjoy it in slow motion on a regular basis. I had my doubts about the viability of a sequel but clearly there is plenty of historical story to share and another hero envisioned on screen is fine. Actor Sullivan Stapleton is fine but he lacks the charisma of Gerard Butler. After getting an elaborate backstory, Xerxes is placed on the sidelines for most of the tale, and his godlike pontification is not really likely to elevate the movie the same way Butler's ferocity did.

So in summary, it is a worthy followup to "300". There is nothing that will harm the memory of the original film and the addition of Green makes the movie more appealing than I originally thought it would be. Anyone who is interested at all in the movie will find something to meet their expectations, but if your only expectation is battle, blood, and bromance, then this is a movie that you can fully embrace.