Skip to main content

I do… very competitive ice dancing.

Justice League
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Superheroes, and superhero movies, trade in hyperbole, so it shouldn’t be surprising that DC’s two releases this year have been responded to in like, only each at opposite ends of the spectrum. Wonder Woman was insanely over-praised in the rush to fete a female superhero finally leading a movie, crushing all nuanced criticism in its wake. Justice League, meanwhile, has been lambasted on the basis that it’s more of the same as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, only worse – to the extent there have been calls for a Zach Snyder Director’s Cut, which is quite an extent, as extents go – as it’s guilty of being an unholy clash of styles, grimdark Zach scowling in one corner and quip-happy Joss pirouetting in the other. And yes, the movie is consequently a mess, but it’s a relatively painless mess, with the sense to get in and get out again before the viewer has enough time to assess the full extent of the damage.


The manner in which Justice League has been cut to the bone, excising anything that might be considered a subplot, with occasional scenes left here or there that might have amounted to genuine ones once – Martha Kent selling the ranch – put me in mind of other ruthlessly slaughtered turkeys that studios gutted and dumped in the forlorn hope of maximisng hiding-to-nothing box office through additional screenings per day. The Avengers, for example. That is, the 1998 big screen version of the British TV series. Justice League is duly replete with the necessary, expected elements – introducing the various team members, having them meet, squabble and finally unite as a very powerful CGI menace assembles an awesome object with which it plans to subdue, subjugate and overcome the planet – but they move by at such a clip there’s never a sense that anyone’s particularly keen on the story being told; they just want to get it over and done with and hope the takings are sufficient to call it evens.


Which is curiously appropriate to DC’s game plan, if you can discern a grand design to their hasty, catch-up cinematic universe, as Justice League is a two-hour equivalent of what Marvel, in their long-game wisdom, has taken half a decade to arrive at with their Infinity Stones. Both sport an oversized, all-CGI humanoid who looks pretty shit, let’s be honest (although Marvelheads will vehemently deny Thanos looks anything less than amazeballs), hunting down the items – Mother Boxes or Infinity Stones – that will confer ultimate power over all.


Ciaran Hinds plays Steppenwolf but deserves zero blame for how entirely forgettable the character is (I mean, really, the band would have been more threatening). His gibbering Parademons make more of an impact, although they reminded me unflatteringly of Katana’s imbecilic henchman in Highlander II: The Quickening.  Steppenwolf isn’t as ridiculous as David Thewlis’ head plastered onto a buff god of war in Wonder Woman, and he’s probably no worse when it comes down to it than a number of less than scintillating Marvel heroes (if we’re going to get into brand wars), but that doesn’t make him any more acceptable. No doubt, if the mentioned Darkseid ever makes an appearance, evidently planned as the focus of the now aborted Justice League 2, he’ll also be all-CGI, all-underwhelming.


The idea, I’m guessing, is that bad guys shouldn’t matter too much, as this is all about the team up. And to some extent, that isn’t wrong – I can’t say I remember the Chitauri, particularly – although the effectiveness of this quintet/sextet (depending on what point in the movie you’re at) is variable. Ezra Miller’s Barry Allen/ The Flash is easily the highlight of the picture. Barry has the most interesting arc – fearful and erratic in his skill set, learning to conquer one and hone the other – and he’s where Whedon’s po-mo dialogue and verbal diarrhoea actually fit the character. Much of that is down to Miller’s incredibly amiable, wired performance, hugely stoked to be with genuine superheroes and entirely humble about his own abilities. It’s inevitable that Whedon will reference Pet Sematary when talking about bringing Supes back from the grave, and have Barry worry that Cyborg will consider it “racially charged” when he offers a fist bump, but Miller’s giddy-geek-jacked-on-junk-food makes the material seem almost fresh.


If Ray Fisher can’t do much with Victor Stone/Cyborg, it’s because he’s encumbered on every level. The character occupies the realm of heightened body horror to an extent even Robocop was reluctant to explore, and it’s nigh impossible to move past that effectively into a breezier, more carefree superhero narrative. Early scenes do offer something of a sop, as he rebukes his father (Joe Morton) for turning him into a monster, but without that essential pain, all you have is a guy in a crap CGI outfit. And the CGI really is crap.


Jason Momoa’s boozehound-bro meathead Arthur Curry/Aquaman has plenty of personality, but unfortunately none of it is terribly appealing. I’m mildly interested to see how they’re intending to revolve a whole movie around him, as aside from a very Whedon scene in which he shares his feelings thanks to accidentally sitting on Diana’s Lasso of Truth, his whiff of alpha-dominance is faintly obnoxious (as for flying through the air killing Parademons: well, only Snyder could make something as ridiculous as that almost work). We briefly see his soggy undersea abode, and I’m none the wiser about any of it, particularly who Amber Heard is playing and why.


So it’s one hit against two misses for the newbies, which is the same ratio for those with whom we’re more familiar. Gal Gadot comes through the proceedings with dignity entirely intact, despite numerous arse-shots and an uptick in lowest common denominator impulses – Alfred, who clearly spends too much time on his own, talking up her potential to bachelor Bruce, Diana witheringly but indulgently noting she’s surrounded by boys rather than men – after the restraint of Wonder Woman.


Batfleck… Hang up the cape, Ben. The actor looks puffy and ill-at-ease when he isn’t in the suit, and when he (or his stunt double) is, there’s a consistent air of how ridiculous it is that his character is even attempting to impose himself on a situation where he’s entirely physically out of his depth (regardless of the number of wonderful toys he has). Indeed, it simply isn’t enough for Bruce to mention he’s already too old for this sort of thing, as we’re continually wondering why the hell he’s squatting on the edge of a girder from which he might trip and plummet to his death at any moment, or how shot his knees must be from repeatedly leaping great distances onto concrete. More damagingly, Affleck’s just plain uninteresting and uninterested. He brings nothing to the part aside from tepid competence.


In contrast, while I’d rather Henry Cavill didn’t stop being Supes, between his uncannily CGI-d out soup strainer, the incessant over-compensations for past sins against the character, and his rapid recovery from resurrection, he’d be forgiven for having had enough. The return from the grave is handled with almost amusing alacrity – at some point a subplot with a bad Supes in black was evidently dumped, on the reasonable basis that his character had already spent quite enough time glowering without yet suggesting him as discernibly Super-like – and not inconsiderable cluelessness; why didn’t the fledgling League simply bring Lois (or his mom) to see him straightaway? It would have saved multiple brutal beat downs. And then, it takes him a mere five minutes of standing around in a corn field and he’s good to go. Offhand doesn’t begin to cover it. Most wretchedly, Superman has a big old chuckle with Cyborg after defeating Steppenwolf, because, you see, Superman laughs now (see also his race with Barry; the guy’s really lightened up!) In the same vein, he refuses to stand idly by when there’s a bout city-wide destruction porn, breaking off defeating Steppenwolf to fly away and save a building full of people! Priorities, there. Ones that come across as pathetically pandering.


Justice League is every bit as garish and aesthetically distracting as the trailers suggested, but that’s Snyder’s palette of choice for you (albeit, as some comparable caps have shown, Whedon initiated significant regrading of the CGI action fest climax to make it look a little less two-tone). It’s also less frenetic than typical Snyder, probably partly because Danny Elfman’s not entirely sympathetic cues are married to the images instead of Hans Zimmer’s. 


I’m probably in the minority who considers the DC movies much of a muchness in that none of them are terrible good or straight up terrible – even Batman v Superman – and Justice League comfortably joins their ranks. While Justice League has abundant issues – and I’m not exactly itching to see whatever Lex Luther and a ridiculously bleach-blonde Deathstroke have planned next – there’s just enough Whedon pep and zip to make it a fun ride. Look, I’m fully cognisant of the guy’s creative shortcomings (putting his personal life to one side), and his undeniable talents with structure don’t really have a chance to come into play when attempting to “fix” a movie at such a late stage, meaning it’s his variable hit ratio with everyone-gives-good-gags approach to dialogue that’s to the fore (that or a moment where two characters tell each other what they’re feeling, laced with sexual innuendo, then giving a good gag), but he ensures this picture isn’t a slog. It’s probably been pruned more than was necessary, but there’s enough brio here to make the future of DC less foreboding.


Warner Bros isn’t happy, though. Very occasionally, perhaps not a silk purse but a fit-for-purpose wallet can be made out of a sow’s ear – World War Z was much better than it had any right to be, given the problems that plagued it, not least its director – so expecting miracles from course correcting Justice League by bringing in Whedon were unrealistic. And expecting audiences who’d been burned by Batman v Superman to rinse and repeat for something that appeared to nurse all the same complaints was likewise foolhardy. So they’re looking to restructure, but as long as they maintain the approach of wanting Marvel-level results “now” they’re probably continually set to stumble.


There’s a standalone Batman movie, unlikely to feature Batfleck, but the latest suggestion is that he will appear in the Barry Allen timeline reboot Flashpoint, which would make sense as an exit strategy, where WB/DC can pick and choose which characters they want to keep and who to recast (not that it really matters with a universe already as woollily built as this). Robert Zemeckis was being talked about for that one – he needs a hit – and Warners rightly perceives that Flash went down well in Justice League. On the other hand, they also seem to think Aquaman did. Well, they have to; his solo movie’s already in the can.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.