Tag Archives: Movies

Ready Player One Review

In this day and age, pop culture has become self-aware. With the generation that grew up in the 1980s – the decade in which pop culture became culture – now shaping entertainment, it’s really no surprise that movies, video games, and even books are often blatant homages to the 1980s works that inspired them. It should really come as no surprise then, that one of the most popular books of this decade is Ernest Cline’s 2011 novel Ready Player One, which largely takes place in a virtual reality universe where pop culture can conveniently be referenced at any and every turn. It seems like a match made in heaven then, that Ready Player One’s cinematic adaptation would be directed by Steven Spielberg, the man who arguably had the single biggest impact on popular culture during its golden age. And while Ready Player One may be the kind of movie you can poke a million holes into, when all is said and done, it does manage to capture that “feel good” Spielberg vibe.

The story takes place in a not-too-distant, somewhat dystopian future. In a time where “people simply want to escape their problems instead of fixing them,” the world takes refuge in a virtual world known as “The Oasis,” where people can live a second life as whatever they like, whether it be their own creation or replicating a figure from popular culture.

The Oasis began life as a video game by game designer James Halliday (Mark Rylance), but over time, became something of its own parallel universe, where its players live quite literal second lives within the game, without the limitations of reality holding them back. As the real world around everyone went to pot (it’s never explicitly mentioned how the world got in the state it’s in during the events of the film), people thrived within the Oasis, finding success, fame, fortune or simply living out their dreams within the game world. The Oasis seemingly took over all media, with movies, video games and all other forms of entertainment being found within the game (where such works can be experienced as they would be in our world via movie theater or home console, or they can be lived through by those playing within the Oasis).

Because of the Oasis’ influence on the world, Halliday’s company became the most lucrative in the world, and Halliday himself became something of a deity in the eyes of many. After Halliday passed away, his in-game Oasis avatar, Anorak the All-Knowing, revealed a new quest within the Oasis. If players can discover three secret keys by accomplishing secret tasks, they can find an “Easter egg” that will give them control over the Oasis and his company. The first such challenge is a seemingly unbeatable death race. Five years have gone by since Halliday’s passing, and no one has found a means to beat the race and achieve the first key, let alone the clues to the other challenges.

There are, of course, evildoers at work in the form of the IOI company (the second largest in the world), run by the conniving Nolan Serrento (Ben Mendelsohn). IOI run questionable operations within the Oasis in order to force others into their debt, effectively making them slaves to the company. Of course, IOI seeks to find Anorak’s Easter egg so that they can gain full control of the Oasis, expanding their empire exponentially.

The hero of the story is Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), a young adult from the slums of Ohio, and whose Oasis alter ego is the silver-haired Parzival. Watts wishes to find the Easter egg, as to improve his life beyond his wildest dreams. His quest for the egg is joined by Samantha Cook (Olivia Cooke), a rebel determined to stop IOI from gaining control of the Oasis. There’s also Watt’s in-game best friend Aech (Lena Waithe), who repairs weapons and vehicles in the Oasis; as well as Daito and Sho (Win Morisaki and Philip Zhao), who often help Aech get out of jams.

“You can be anything you want in the Oasis, and this is what you went with? Okay.”

It’s not exactly one of Spielberg’s smarter movies, but it does fit in nicely with his nearly unparalleled catalog of adventure-based, popcorn blockbusters. Simply put, Ready Player One is a fun movie. Its premise, while maybe a bit silly on paper, makes for exciting set-pieces, dazzling visual effects (though some of the CG characters may take some time to get used to), and a myriad of pop culture references both visual and verbal.

Now, there are some obvious flaws with the film. Namely, Ready Player One is the kind of movie whose internal logic you can nitpick for hours. For example, in searching for hints of the Easter egg, Parzival regularly visits the Halliday Library, a literal museum of Halliday’s life and memory, where people can actually watch moments of Halliday’s life play out. Despite seeming like the obvious place to look for clues in Halliday’s egg hunt, Parzival is the only person who ever seems to go there (it’s explained that with no one finding the first key after five years, people looked elsewhere for clues after the library failed to provide results. But am I really to expect that no one else is willing to look into a visual recreation of Halliday’s brain for clues?). Similarly, many of the results to these clues turn out to be things that don’t seem particularly difficult to figure out, and it’s hard to imagine so many years would go by with no one finding them when pretty much everyone in the world is playing the Oasis. And as any self-respecting gamer knows, an Easter egg is a hidden object or moment in a game that doesn’t actually provide any practical use. So the fact that Halliday’s Easter egg gives its finder the very practical use of control of his company doesn’t so much make it an Easter egg so much as a secret. But I digress.

In all seriousness, I hate to point out logical stretches in a movie like this. I feel too often these days people let trivial inconsistencies prevent them from enjoying movies, and I certainly don’t want to jump in that boat. The ‘fun factor’ of Ready Player One certainly isn’t damaged by a few “but wait” elements, but it does boast enough of them that even I have to stop and point them out.

Less forgivable, however, is the lack of attention given to the supporting characters. Aech gets a decent amount of screen time, but poor Sho and Daito feel largely forgotten for long stretches of the movie, to the point where you may wonder why there needed to be five heroes in the first place.

As strange as this may sound, the story may have benefitted if the stakes were a bit lower. Having an evil corporation seeking to enslave people, and having a rebellion (yes, they use the word ‘rebellion’) standing against them seems too contrived in a story like this. One scene in the movie sees Sorrento discussing all the advertisements IOI hopes to add to the Oasis when they find the egg. I almost feel like simply playing off that aspect of the bad guys would have benefitted the story. Just have them trying to gain control of the Oasis to turn a beloved game into a commercial. The hero could remain a poor kid trying to get a better life, but does this story really need the dystopian element?

Perhaps I’m just getting sidetracked to what I would have liked the story to be. The truth is the story that is here is still a lot of fun. The movie even expands on the book by widening its inclusion of pop culture to not only be limited by 1980s movie and video game nostalgia, but sees other decades and media (such as anime) sprinkled throughout as well. Yeah, we get to hear some awesome 80s tunes, but we also get to see Tracer from Overwatch heading into war alongside the Battletoads, and an entire planet dedicated to Minecraft.

“What? No Mei or Rainbow Mika?”

Okay, so Ready Player One may teeter on pandering with some of the references, but in a movie like this, that’s only aiming to be pure fun, is it really such a bad thing to simply want to see some of your favorite movie and game characters on the big screen? And in a bit of humility, Spielberg actively avoided from referencing his own works, even though he easily could have, given his influence on the 1980s (though somewhat touchingly, Spielberg pays plenty of homage to his protegé Robert Zemeckis, particularly Back to the Future). So maybe these references and cameos are a trap for people like me, but they’re fun and lack vanity, so I’m not really going to complain about falling for them hook, line and sinker.

Ready Player One is a flawed movie: the supporting cast is often forgotten, there are a bit too many sci-fi tropes at play with the bad guys, and the narrative has its rough edges. But the movie is a whole lot of fun, with some terrific action scenes and visual effects, and it only gets better as it plays out. By the end of it, I was happy I’d seen Ready Player One. I mean, you get to see The Iron Giant and a Gundam smackdown against Mecha-Godzilla! Doesn’t that just say it all?

 

7.5

Advertisements

The Shape of Water Review

Guillermo del Toro has left quite the impact on the world of cinema. His alternating between Spanish-language fantasy films and more mainstream American features have allowed him to cover a wide range of genres, sprinkling in his uniquely vivid imagination throughout them. Though not all of his films are equally as enthralling, Guillermo del Toro has become one of the few fantasy filmmakers to manage to win over more traditionalist critics. His most recent film, The Shape of Water, even managed to become the second-ever fantasy film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Despite this acclaim, along with its terrific acting and a handful of inspired elements, The Shape of Water often stumbles due to its inability to make its central relationship resonate, and for its over-reliance on its clichéd, psychopathic antagonist.

Set during the midst of the Cold War, The Shape of Water centers around woman named Elisa (Sally Hawkins), a mute cleaner at a secret government laboratory. Though her inability to talk makes her something of an outcast, she has at least two friends in her closeted neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins), a struggling commercial artist, and fellow cleaner Zelda (Octavia Spencer), who works as something of an interpreter for Elisa at the workplace.

One day, the government lab receives a mysterious creature from South America, captured by Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon). The lab intends to study the amphibious creature under Strickland’s eye, in hopes that it can help them gain an edge over the Russians.

Elisa, curious about the creature, sneaks into its containment center to get a better understanding of it. She soon learns that the creature is capable of displaying reason and emotion (it quickly picks up on Elisa’s sign language), and also finds out that Strickland has been torturing the creature. Feeling a connection to the creature as a fellow outcast, Elisa soon forms a secret bond with it, one which blossoms into romance.

On paper, it sounds like something of a contemporary fairy tale. But sadly, the film only feels like ‘magic’ in small bursts. The idea of a mute woman falling in love with a fantasy monster sounds interesting in concept, but the grave flaw with this central relationship is that the creature isn’t given enough human qualities to make their romance have any real emotional weight.

As it is, taking an amphibious monster – even a humanoid one – and turning it into a romantic interest is already a hard sell. But The Shape of Water fails at making its creature feel like a worthy significant other for Elisa, as it comes across as more animal-like than anything. Yes, the creature can understand sign language, but that’s about as far as its human traits go. Even Giles refers to the creature as a “wild animal” after it devours a cat, and explains that they “can’t expect it to be anything more.” Sure, it’s sad to see the creature get electrocuted by Strickland, but that almost seems like a cheap ploy to get audiences to empathize with a creature that, otherwise, doesn’t boast many empathetic traits.

Sure, The Shape of Water tries its hand at a few other tricks to build sympathy for its monster (the creature even possesses healing powers, which seems like a requirement for all misunderstood monsters by this point). But the romance between Elisa and the creature never really clicks because it doesn’t so much feel like a love between two people – with one of those people just happening to be a fantasy monster – but between a human woman and a wild animal, which makes things feel more awkward than beautiful.

This is only magnified by the film’s inconsistent pace. The earlier half of the film moves so quickly that the romance between Elisa and the creature feels like it just kind of happens out of nowhere, while the second half seemingly comes to a dead stop, with the characters’ personalities and stories coming to a stand-still. This whiplash-like pacing of moving too quickly before stopping in its tracks makes the development of Elisa’s relationship with the creature feel non-existent.

The film’s other great narrative flaw is its over-emphasis on Strickland. Michael Shannon’s acting in the role is brilliant, but he really only has so much to work with. Not every villain has to be a three-dimensional human being, and sometimes the irredeemable psychopath villain can work. But it’s an archetype that’s so overplayed that it’s hard to make it standout, and while Shannon’s acting might make the role a bit more memorable than it would otherwise be, Strickland still comes off as like he’s just ticking the boxes on a checklist of the requirements for a despicable villain. The film makes an attempt to turn him into something of a commentary on the traditional American “man of the future” archetype (he has two children, a nice house, and a seemingly perfect wife to thinly guise his twisted nature), but even that’s a commentary that feels overly familiar. So even thematically, Strickland comes across as clichéd.

Despite its narrative shortcomings, The Shape of Water still has its merits. Again, it needs to be repeated that the acting is top-notch, and though the creature may not be able to win us over emotionally, it is a visual marvel, as are the set and costume designs. Perhaps the film’s best attribute is its musical score, which may linger in the memory more strongly than the film itself.

There are bits and pieces of greatness sprinkled here and there in The Shape of Water, but its core themes of love and feeling like an outcast from society just don’t resonate, its pace feels off, and it falls prey to the old movie trope of dedicating too much time to showing us how cruel its one-dimensional villain is.

I won’t say it’s a flat-out bad movie, but The Shape of Water is far from great, and one of Guillermo del Toro’s clunkier efforts. If it weren’t for the obvious Oscar-baiting elements the film provides, it would be a complete mystery as to how The Shape of Water managed to snag Best Picture while so many other fantasy films got the cold shoulder.

The Shape of Water may boast some merits that rise to the surface. But on the whole, it sinks.

 

5.0

It’s What’s on the Inside that Counts (Even in Fiction)

For whatever reason, I decided to watch the 90th annual Academy Awards the other night. Some good movies won stuff and other, more boring movies won others (it’s almost like the movies the Academy decides to nominate has something to do with their consistently decreasing viewership). Amidst it were the usual politics thrown into the mix (which is fine, whether or not I agree with someone, it’s their right to share their beliefs), but less tolerable was the air of self-righteousness that usually emanates from such events, which seems particularly misplaced given everything that’s been going on in the Hollywood scene over the past year.

Okay, I’ve come to expect all that from the Oscars. We are talking about an event where the wardrobes of those who walk on the red carpet take center stage more than acknowledging their own craft, after all. It isn’t exactly a practice in humility.

The reason I’m writing this isn’t about the general attitude that I’ve come to expect from the show, but rather, one particular theme that persistently echoed throughout the show. For (very understandable) reasons, one of the recurring talking points of the show was greater inclusion of women and minorities in movies, which is wonderful. I’m all for inclusion, equal rights, and all that jazz. That’s all well and good.

What got me though was one particular statement (I can’t remember exactly who said it or when, so if anyone can clarify please do). During one of the montages, someone was discussing the new wave of super hero films such as Wonder Woman and Black Panther showing a greater display of representation (the former of course starring a woman, and the latter starring an African-American) with one particular statement saying something along the lines of (pardon the paraphrasing) “It’s empowering to see these kinds of roles. White men get to have this feeling all the time with super hero movies.”

Hold the phone…what now?

Now, this is something I’ve talked about before, and it’s something that a lot of people would probably vilify me for. But I just don’t understand this idea people seem to have these days that, unless a character shares one’s sex or skin color, that an audience is unable to identify with them. Again, I’m all for inclusion, but for reasons being that we’re all human, and different kinds of people exist. I do not, however, think that someone should/could only be able to identify with a character who looks like them.

For one thing, I can tell you that I don’t go to super hero movies to feel empowered because x-super hero is a white dude like me. I tend to go to super hero movies for entertainment, and maybe to witness a strong story with memorable characters. And I think that’s why everyone goes to super hero movies.

Yeah, it’s awesome that we now have characters like Wonder Woman and Black Panther on the silver screen, and I happily welcome it. But I think this idea that people need a character who shares their race or sex in order to relate and empathize with them is incredibly superficial. It’s essentially telling people that things such as skin color and body parts are their every last defining trait, which, to me, seems insulting to them as individuals.

As children, we’re taught that it’s what’s on the inside that counts, and that is indeed sound advise that rings true for us as adults. There’s far more to people than their race or sex, and to imply that it isn’t possible for someone to relate to someone else – even a fictional character – because they aren’t of the same race or sex is an incredibly shallow outlook on one’s self and on art.

It is very much possible for any audience to identify with any character, depending on what the character is all about and who they are. I’m not a woman, and I found Wonder Woman to be a very relatable character, and one who was incredibly easy to empathize with, due to who she was a character. She was kind-hearted and brave (certainly more so than myself), and had an endearing quality about her that made her incredibly easy to root for. Similar sentiments can be said for Black Panther, who was a man trying to do right for his country, but becomes conflicted when he discovers a dark secret about his father. These are all human elements that transcend their outwards appearances (just like real life!) and make them universally likable.

If I might venture out of the super hero genre for a second, I can say that I felt a personal empathy for Elsa’s story arc in the Disney film Frozen. Yeah, she’s an animated princess/queen, but she’s also a character who had inner struggles that could be easy to read as an allegory for depression and social anxiety. Those are certainly issues I can say I personally feel for, and have experienced. And that’s something that certainly rings louder than the fact that the character in question was an animated sorceress in a kids’ movie.

Again, I certainly hope I don’t sound anything like those jack-holes who seem to have a problem with seeing someone who looks different from themselves on the big screen. I’m all for diversity, but I also think it’s wrong for someone (even a fictional character) to be a token. And thinking that X-character needs to cover a certain demographic because said demographic would be unable to connect with them otherwise is kind of insulting when you think about it. It more or less sums someone up by their outward appearance, and isn’t that exactly what people are trying not to do?

The Video Game Movie Curse is Lifted (Sort of)!

Movies based on existing video games tend to suck. Sure, I might have some guilty pleasure in the occasional viewing of the Super Mario Bros. or Street Fighter movie, but I would never tell you they’re good movies. At least those two examples had some excuse for their poor execution, however, seeing as they were among the first of their kind (in Mario’s case, the first), it’s understandable that studios would have trouble trying to translate the nature of a video game into the movie world.

Even now, however, when games have become more and more movie-like, filmmakers still can’t seem to get things right. And in fact, video game movies may be worse now than ever before (I said I take guilty pleasure in the cinematic versions of Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter, I can’t make that same claim for more recent entries). Granted, some (including myself) might argue that video games becoming more and more like movies makes actual movie adaptations of them entirely redundant, but at the very least it should allow them to be translated onto the silver screen with less appalling results than what we’ve been getting.

Well, it seems the video game movie curse has finally been lifted…if only partly.

I say only partly because, well, this strangely miraculous occurrence of a good video game movie comes in the form of a ten-minute short film. So while the short manages to successfully capture the essence of the game it’s based on, we still have to wait for a feature-length film based on a game to, well, not suck.

The short film in question is Papers, Please: The Short Film, based on the cult classic 2013 indie title, Papers, Please (one of my personal favorite indie titles, which I now feel I underrated in my original review).

Papers, Please was a game all about the immigration process, which may not sound like the most enticing video game concept, but managed to pull off its goals in spades. It managed to somehow be fun, while also being incredibly dramatic and forcing players to face serious ethical dilemmas in the role of a passport inspector in a war-torn nation.

The short film adaptation, released via YouTube in February of this year, manages to capture the game’s look and feel, as well as its unique sense of suspense and emotion (it probably doesn’t hurt that Lucas Pope, the creator/designer of Papers, Please, was one of the short’s writers).

Here is the short film for all of your viewing pleasure. Now let’s just hope that someone can make a video game feature film that so strongly embraces its source material while also providing a good movie in its own right.

Black Panther Review

Marvel has been on a roll in recent years. Okay, so I suppose one could say they’ve been on a roll since the Marvel Cinematic Universe began with Iron Man ten-years ago(!). Sure, there have still been a few stinkers here and there (even within said Cinematic Universe), but for the most part, the MCU – despite its seemingly constant stream of releases – has been pretty consistent. That’s been especially true of the past few years. As Marvel builds up to the first part of its crescendo with The Avengers: Infinity War, they’ve been releasing some exceptionally entertaining features, such as Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and the franchise reviving Thor: Ragnarok. The latest of these releases is Black Panther, Marvel’s last film before Infinity War hits theaters. Black Panther manages to match Marvel’s recent winning streak and – with the possible exception of Homecoming – manages to surpass them in the story and character department.

Taking place shortly after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Black Panther sees T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) ready to take the throne of the African nation of Wakanda; after his father, the king, was killed during the events of Civil War. Wakanda is secretly a highly advanced nation due to its abundance of a substance known as Vibranium, which has allowed Wakanda to remain hidden from the rest of the world, posing as a third world country. Of course, Wakanda is also the most “Marvel” country that Marvel could have concocted, given that its king also serves as a super hero known as the Black Panther, given superhuman speed and strength from a “heart-shaped flower” during a ceremony, and wearing a Vibranium suit that adds to his abilities.

Like the best Marvel movies, Black Panther takes a premise that may sound silly on paper (super king!), and turns it into a genuinely good story due to its characters and storytelling. T’Challa proves to be one of Marvel’s more fleshed-out heroes, and is given more inner drama to deal with as the film goes on, which is a nice change of pace (not to mention Boseman’s acting helps elevate the character all the further). T’Challa is nicely countered by one of the MCU’s better villains in Erik “Killmonger” Stevens (Michael B. Jordan), a vicious soldier who has allied himself with Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), a black market arms dealer who has been stealing Vibranium for decades. What sets Killmonger apart from the vast majority of MCU villains is an actual sense of motivation which – although not the first MCU foe to boast such an element (Have we already forgotten Vulture?) – gives him a sense of depth that this mega-franchise has often struggled with in regards to its baddies.

It’s the fleshed-out hero and villain, and the dynamic between the two that – like Spider-Man: Homecoming – helps elevate Black Panther to being a more character driven narrative than most of its super hero kin. The film also squeezes in some social and ethical commentary that comes into play between hero and foe (Killmonger has a very understandable chip on his shoulder in regards to Wakanda hoarding its technological advancements for itself in secret, when they could easily help the rest of the African continent, and the world, with it).

If there are any troubles to be had with the film’s plot, it’s that the very nature of Vibranium can come across as an overly convenient device all too often. With how frequently it seems Wakandan technology can just do anything, it can seem like an easy means to get the story from point A to point B without having to give things much thought. Vibranium can come across as more of a magic element than Dr. Strange’s actual magic at times.

Still, Black Panther has a lot going for it, including some memorable supporting characters (and performances) such as T’Challa’s semi-love interest Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o), and his genius inventor younger sister Shuri (Letita Wright); not to mention an almost-surprisingly good musical score that fittingly blends African inspirations with traditional super hero/science-fiction sounds. Other highlights include the film’s state-of-the-art visual effects and highly entertaining action set pieces, both categories being at the top of their game within the MCU.

Black Panther ultimately proves to not only be an exceptional good time at the movies, but one of the best films within Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. It does still fall prey to some of the franchise’s convenient plot devices (seriously, what can’t Vibranium do?), but like Spider-Man: Homecoming, its emphasis on character arcs and development helps elevate it above most of Marvel’s (admittedly enjoyable) output.

It may not completely reinvent the super hero genre in the way films like Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight and The Incredibles did way back when. But in a time when the genre can feel oversaturated to the point that even its more hyped releases begin to blur with each other, Black Panther helps reinvigorate the super hero film through its solid execution, unique setting and aesthetics, and character depth.

8.5

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Early Thoughts (Spoiler-free)

Wow. I mean, wow. I had high expectations for The Last Jedi, seeing how much I love The Force Awakens and how I greatly enjoyed Rogue One. But I was not expecting it to exceed my expectations as much as it did. Go ahead and call me hyperbolic, but I think it was probably the best all-around Star Wars film yet made.

Yes, I know that’s a bold statement. But I’m not usually one to be so quick at making such bold statements, so when I do, it’s kind of a big deal for me. Definitely a sign that whatever I’m making the bold statement about left an impression on me. And boy, did The Last Jedi leave an impression on me.

The Force Awakens was a return to form for the series, and introduced a great new cast of characters while re-introducing us to the ones we’ve loved since the originals (and wisely ignoring the prequels for the most part). As far as I’m concerned, The Force Awakens went toe-to-toe with The Empire Strikes Back, but right now, I think The Last Jedi betters both of those Star Wars greats.

I’m not going to go into details here, as to not spoil anything and to save most of my thoughts for a proper review. But I will say that the film opens with arguably the best space battle in the series. Usually, the space battle comes towards the end of a Star Wars film, but here you get it right off the bat, and it’s amazing. And the film just keeps it up from then on out. The LAst Jedi has the longest running time of any Star Wars film, but it’s consistently entertaining throughout its entirety.

Better still, The Last Jedi continues the great strides in character development started in The Force Awakens, with Rey and Kylo Ren in particular growing more as characters, and might even already be the two best-developed characters in the series.

I also can’t wait to see how fanboys will find the stupidest reasons to hate The Last Jedi due to it not being a part of their childhood nostalgia, while also trying to rewrite history and pretend that the prequels were ever any good. You know it’s going to happen. No matter how good these new Star Wars movies get (and they’ve been great so far), Star Wars nerds will find any reason to whine. Oh well, their loss.

Seriously, I can’t say enough good things about The Last Jedi. There are a couple of little gripes I have with certain character and story elements (which I can’t reveal here), but they’re inconsequential compared to how much the film does right. This was seriously one of the most entertaining moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had. I might even say it’s my favorite movie since Pixar’s Inside Out. I simply enjoyed The Last Jedi from start to finish. It’s entertaining, emotional, and captures that Star Wars magic perhaps better than any of its predecessors.

Whatever the filmmakers have in store for Episode IX, they have a hell of an act to follow.

Justice League Review

*This review contains some spoilers, but nothing that wasn’t obvious already, really.*

You know what? I hate Superman. There, I said it.  I hate Superman, and watching Justice League reminded me exactly why I hate him. Despite being named after a team of super heroes, Justice League goes out of its way to display just how useless the rest of the team is compared to Superman alone. His super strength is stronger than Wonder Woman’s, his super speed is faster than Flash’s; plus he can fly, lift buildings, has heat vision, ice breath, and is basically indestructible. In one scene, he nonchalantly throws Batman to the side as if he’s garbage. I hate that Superman can just do anything. I hate that he makes infinitely better super heroes look like nothing by comparison. I simply, flat-out can not stand Superman.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the rest of Justice League.

Since its inception with Man of Steel in 2013, the DC Extended Universe has been a shallow attempt at recreating what Marvel has done with its Cinematic Universe. While the MCU wisely took its time in bringing its different super heroes together, the DCEU seemed to be in a desperate game of catch-up, rushing the crossover aspects together with its beyond-muddled second entry, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice. The DCEU has become so needy in its desires to replicate what Marvel has accomplished, that it seems to consistently forget to make coherent movies and strong characters to justify its extended universe.

But then, earlier in 2017, we had a glimmer of hope in the form of Wonder Woman. There was a movie that told a simple super hero origin story, but had a main character who was likable and fleshed out, not to mention it actually seemed to understand human emotion. Surely Wonder Woman signified a turn for the better for the DCEU? Surely these movies would learn from past mistakes and take notes from what made Wonder Woman work?

Nope. Here comes Justice League to undo all of that goodwill Wonder Woman established.

In all fairness, Justice League isn’t as much of a disaster as Batman V. Superman, nor is it as boring as Man of Steel. But it’s still a clunky, over-bloated movie that lacks focus and, even more disappointing, lacks any heart. It wants so desperately to be on the same boat as the MCU with its shared universe, but also makes the shared universe concept feel pointless with how insignificant everyone else feels compared to Superman. If one team member can take out all the others without breaking a sweat, why should we care that there’s a team at all?

Basically, the story here is that a being from another world named Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds) invades Earth looking for the three lost “Mother Boxes” which, when combined, can destroy a planet or something. And so with Superman dead after the events of Batman V. Superman, Batman tries to form the Justice League to defeat this otherworldly threat…before completely giving up on the idea and deciding to use a Mother Box to resurrect ol’ Supes because everyone is useless compared to him.

“Steppenwolf makes me miss the villains of Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World. Yes, he’s THAT bad of a character.”

In all honesty, Steppenwolf is very likely the most boring, uninteresting villain in super hero movie history. I’m not exaggerating. Ciaran Hinds’ acting abilities are entirely lost on a character who is written without the tiniest shred of depth or motivation. So much as calling him a placeholder villain is giving him too much credit. I don’t even think he has a line of dialogue that isn’t about destruction or obtaining a Mother Box (which may as well just be called Macguffins). He’s an absolute non-entity. Perhaps worst of all, he’s a CG character who is entirely unconvincing. Every time he fights with the heroes, it looks like the Justice League is grappling with a PS3 monster.

Speaking of bad visual effects, Justice League is full of them. This is a movie aiming to be a big blockbuster, but one which appears the studios behind it didn’t have enough faith to put the extra funding into it.

The CG used to hide actor Henry Cavill’s mustache has already obtained internet infamy, and with good reason. It’s downright distracting. Apparently, Cavill has an obligation to another role that requires a mustache, so he couldn’t shave it. So the filmmakers just decided to CG the area in between his nose and upper lip, and it looks as weird as it sounds. Might I suggest a better option would have been to give Superman a mustache? Sure, Superman isn’t known for having facial hair, but with how often comic books – the origins of these characters – retell, retcon and flat-out ignore certain continuities, is adding a mustache to Superman really so out of the question? I mean, come on, you’re resurrecting the dude with a magic box, but a mustache? That’s just too far. Hell, if Superman had a Tom Sellick ‘stache going on I might actually like him (slightly) more. At the very least, it would be less distracting to see Henry Cavill’s actual mustache than to have a CG band-aid over it.

“Can somebody please get this bad CG off me?!”

The unholy trinity of bad visual effects in Justice League is capped off with Cyborg (Ray Fisher), a member of the Justice League whose mostly robotic body clashes obnoxiously with the human side of his face. It just looks really bad. I mentioned PS3 graphics earlier, but now I’m starting to feel like that was maybe a bit insulting to the PS3. I would much rather look at a ten-year old PS3 game than Steppenwolf’s ugly mug or Cyborg’s…visual awkwardness.

To be fair, not everything is outright horrible in Justice League. On the bright side of things, Gal Gadot returns as Wonder Woman, and is as charming as ever. Aquaman is portrayed by Jason Momoa, and actually seems to be into the character. Some of the action scenes are also decently successful in creating excitement, and unlike the oppressive “edginess and grit” of Man of Steel or Batman V. Superman, Justice League at least tries to lighten the mood at times. Sure, not all of the humor works – with the antics of the Flash (Ezra Miller) growing more exhausting as the film goes on – but I’ll take the attempt at fun over the forced brooding of Batman V. Superman any day.

Despite those few highlights, it’s hard to recommend Justice League. Even Ben Affleck’s take on Batman – one of the few positive qualities of Batman V. Superman – seems lackluster this time around, as though Affleck no longer cares following Batman V. Superman’s reception. The characters are one-dimensional, the plot is beyond thin, the pacing is cluttered and all over the place, it’s riddled with bad dialogue, and for a movie that needed to rely heavily on special effects, the effects in question are just really bad.

All that, and I haven’t even mentioned the seemingly pointless elements of the movie. A good example of this is the opening of the movie itself, which is presented as a video of Superman recorded by a couple of kids, asking the caped hero some questions after another rescue. The scene ends just as ol’ Supes is about to answer the question of “what is his favorite thing about Earth.” This scene doesn’t play into the main story, nor does it seem to have any thematic purpose. I honestly don’t know why it’s there.

At the very least, Justice League is the kind of bad movie I can get a kick out of talking about, which is more than I can say for Man of Steel or Batman V. Superman. But it’s also a blatant showcase of these DCEU movies not learning from past mistakes. And considering this is the follow-up to the delightful Wonder Woman, the results sting twice as much.

Maybe DC should just reboot this cinematic universe, but keep Wonder Woman canon and use it as the new starting point. Also, leave Superman out of it. Yeah, that’d be nice.

 

4.0