Justice League
Dir. Zack Snyder
Watch Trailer
During the opening credits of Justice League, there's a moment where we see a homeless man with a cardboard sign reading: "I tried." That pretty much sums up Warner Brothers' whole attempt at creating their DC universe. Struggling to keep up the pace with Marvel Studios, DC dived in head-first, making their "team-up" movies like Batman v. Superman, Suicide Squad, and now Justice League without first testing the waters to see if audiences liked the individual characters first. Plus their whole game plan started on the back of Man of Steel, which was highly divisive (unlike the universally-loved Iron Man with Marvel). The whole thing is on shaky ground, and now that Justice League failed to even crack that $100 million mark opening weekend, the future for this franchise looks questionable. As it should - because Justice League is one of the worst movies I've seen this year.
The story that brings these iconic heroes together on screen for the first time is painfully generic. A big, horned CGI monster named Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hines) is collecting three cubes in order to destroy the planet, using his army of bug-demon soldiers for help. The catch is, Superman - spoilers - died at the end of Batman v. Superman, so Batman (Ben Affleck) needs to recruit a team to protect the magical "Motherboxes" and defeat Steppenwolf. His "justice league" includes Wonder Woman (Gal Godot), who comes across as depersonalized eye candy, The Flash (Ezra Miller), whose inexperienced excitedness provides the "comedic relief," Aquaman (Jason Mamoa), who looks like an underwater Rob Zombie, Cyborg (Ray Fisher), whose dad turned him into a robot after a terrible accident, and eventually another surprise team member - guess who - who joins their ranks.
The generic story is one thing, but it's the tone and screenplay that fails the hardest here. After all, Guardians of the Galaxy - my #1 of 2014 - was great despite essentially the same plot of a group of misfits chasing after a powerful miscellaneous object before it gets in the hands of a generic bad guy. The difference is that Guardians embraced its campy spirit, whereas Justice League is a jarring mish-mash of deadly seriousness and goofy fun. After a family tragedy, director Zack Snyder had to leave the production, and DC brought in Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon for re-shoots. The style of each of these directors is radically different, but instead of getting the best of both worlds, the final product comes off as a vision-less concoction with too many cooks in the kitchen. As bad as Batman v. Superman turned out, at least it stuck to its original vision.
The action itself is also underwhelming. This movie is filled with CGI and god-like characters who suffer little damage (other than Batman), so the stakes feel incredibly low. There's an ugly, artificial sheen over everything - the most egregious example would be Henry Cavill's upper lip. For a different movie, Cavill had grown a mustache that he contractually couldn't shave off. So when it came time for re-shoots, instead of shaving it off and putting on a fake mustache for the other production, WB spent a rumored $25 million to digitally remove his facial hair. Literally the first shot of the movie - a cell phone video of Superman - prominently features this uncanny lip, right away putting a bad taste in your mouth.
If Justice League gets anything right it's the basic design and concepts of the characters. I thought Cyborg's tragic backstory had so much unexplored potential; his father essentially made him into a freak with an overwhelming amount of unwanted responsibility. I also thought Ezra Miller was spot-on casting for the Flash; he seems like the only one who wants to be in this movie. We learn next-to-nothing about Aquaman, but his redesign from his campy, orange-shirted cartoon days is badass. However, with an utterly meaningless story, terrible CGI, an overall ugly "look," and a ridiculous amount of loose ends and non sequitors (e.g. a random Russian family we follow throughout the entire movie, for no real reason), Justice League takes absolutely no advantage of these amazing characters who have endured popularity for decades. With almost 60 years worth of comics to mine from, this is the best we can do?
Rating: D
Wonderstruck
Dir. Todd Haynes
Watch Trailer
Wonderstruck is the latest film from Todd Haynes (Far from Heaven, Carol), and it marks his first attempt at a "family" movie. Based on the YA novel by Hugo author Brian Selznick, Wonderstruck follows two parallel stories from different time periods with a young deaf person at their center. The first features a boy, Ben (Oakes Fegley), who travels alone to 1970s New York after his mother (Michelle Williams) passes away to try to find the father he never knew. The other follows a young girl 50 years earlier in 1920s New York, Rose (Millicent Simmonds), who goes to the big city to reunite with her estranged mother, a stage actress (Julianne Moore).
Although it's one of Haynes' more accessible works, it's paradoxically also one of his most experimental and technically well-made films. Each era is captured beautifully and authentically. The 1920s section is shot in black-and-white, and due to its central character's handicap, it feels like a loving ode to silent cinema (similar to The Artist). For a large section of each timeline, the visuals and Carter Burwell's music score alone are the only things that bring us along, and for me the results were a magical celebration of the power of movies. However, I do think the little girl is better in her role than the boy (likely because the actress is actually deaf in real life!), but I was still rooting for each character to find the answers to their respective mysteries.
Unfortunately, Wonderstruck's ending felt like a foregone conclusion from the beginning, so from a mystery standpoint, the movie fails (especially since it builds up to a "shocking" reveal). But between the performances, the authentic period details, and the fantastic, purely cinematic storytelling, I really enjoyed the journey regardless.
Rating: B
Lady Bird
Dir. Greta Gerwig
Watch Trailer
I don't care who you are, the last couple years in high school are filled with anxiety. You never know what the future holds, and sometimes you can't help yearning for something, even if you're not quite sure what that something is. Lady Bird, the directorial debut for indie-darling actress Greta Gerwig, throws us into the life of one such angst-ridden teenager, Christine McPherson (Saoirse Ronan) - who aggressively prefers to go by the moniker "Lady Bird." Living a typical lower-middle class white girl life in Sacramento circa 2002-3, Christine is desperate to get into a school with "culture" in New York, despite low-ish grades and a price tag that her mom (Laurie Metcalf) doesn't approve of. Feeling like a hipster update of John Hughes, Lady Bird is a movie where the writing is sharp and the characters are authentic.
As much as I liked the film, however, I do not understand the unanimous critical Oscar buzz around this movie. Maybe I'm too close to the subject matter to see why it's such a masterwork, but I thought this movie covered ground not unseen before. The film manages to balance both its comedy and drama well, but did not pack the same punch in either tone as last year's The Edge of Seventeen, my #4 of 2016 and one of my favorite coming-of-age high school movies ever (totally snubbed at the Oscars!).
Despite the fact that I'm scratching my head as to the effusive love it's getting from all sides, Lady Bird is a solid, charming, enjoyable movie with some nice performances and the most poignant use of the Dave Matthews Band in a film to date.
Rating: B
Jane
Dir. Brett Morgen
Watch Trailer
When I was a kid, I did a report on Jane Goodall, and ever since I've weirdly considered her a kind of inspirational figure. While I'm not some nature-loving hippie with a desire to hang around chimps in the jungle, her story of researching chimpanzee behavior, even when the whole scientific community thought her crazy, struck a chord with me. She revolutionized how we think about early humans and animal behavior (no, humans aren't the only creatures that use tools!), and she did it in spite of the naysayers, and in spite of the fact that she was a woman in a male-dominated world. Patiently waiting for months, not knowing if the apes would finally allow her into their space - her story is a testament to doing what you love, being patient, and working very hard. She's a fascinating figure, and this documentary from National Geographic tells Goodall's story using newly uncovered footage of her research 50+ years later, previously thought lost.
The nature footage here is amazing, giving us a close-up look not only at the jungle animals but also Goodall herself (she would later marry her cameraman, so it's funny how many shots there are of a young Goodall - as if he couldn't help staring at her). I do think there were some aspects of her life that could have been expanded on, however - for instance, Jane's obsession with her work resulted in a divorce and eventually a separation with her child, who starting at 6 lived in London with Jane's mother while she stayed in Africa. These aspects aren't investigated very deeply, with the film quick to go back to its convenient "hero" narrative of a determined woman, when a more complex portrait of a flawed, but astounding human would have been much more interesting. As is, though, this is a solid doc with great nature footage and an interesting central story, even if it's mostly surface-level recollections.
Rating: B
No comments:
Post a Comment