Well, this is definitely a film. (Warner Bros, you can have that one for the back of the DVD cover if you like). DC's cinematic interpreters bring their equivalent of Phase One to a head with the long awaited Justice League, featuring Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck's Batman saving the world from a horny god with three evil boxes*1 by recruiting The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and concocting a plan to exhume and resurrect Superman (Henry Cavill) to lend a hand. There will be scenes.
First things first, Justice League is disposable, undemanding fun. Mostly. Gadot and Miller are by far the standout stars, the former arguably bringing the film's only real sincerity to her role, the latter some much needed humour. Cavill is on slightly shakier ground, although that's largely down to how the Man of Steel is treated in the film, and Batfleck still doesn't get his moment in the spotlight, sadly*2.
Things get off to a staggered start as the team are introduced one by one, as well as the threat they'll be facing, and it's there we begin running into problems (see footnote 1). With the best will in the world, the whole thing reeks of its re-writes, asking more questions than it attempts to answer*3. The customary act-three carnage begins in act-two, followed by a dip that's far longer than the breath-catching pause needed. The resulting finale is a brightly-coloured CGI panic-attack, with the team becoming little more than NPCs in a game you're watching someone else play. I didn't not-enjoy the film, but I have to admit to not actually caring about a single character, situation or plot point therein. And that's not a good sign.
Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon try to show DC's world in chaos, and succeed better than I think they meant to. Much like Superman's upper lip, Justice League is an imperfect oddity that's making the best of a troubled production, but never quite convinces…
^^ I found this amiable enough to be a 5/7 movie, but I'm taking a point off for Superman's CGI'd upper-lip. A ridiculous situation with an inexcusable outcome*4.
*1 Probably best if you don't ask. Much like David Thewlis' Ares from Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf is a CGI'd one-dimensional baddie with only half-dimension of actual character (think of a crossover of Malekith and Apocalypse), chasing a trio of macguffins whose only purpose is apparently to evoke memories of Marvel's Infinity Stones and Tolkiens's Rings. Without going into any detail, let's just say that his eventual defeat is brought about by a crisis in the writers-room when they realise that they aren't allowed the cojones to have any of their Heroes™ actually deal a killing blow to a sentient being (man, beast, god, or otherwise). It's an insult to not only the audience, but also DC's flagship characters. Well done, guys. [ BACK ]
*2 Although he's off again in Justice League. If you remember, Bruce Wayne's raison d'etre for killing Supes in Dawn of Justice was that, and I quote, "if we believe there's a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Which is clearly mathematical (not to mention moral) horseshit. This time round he's learned his lesson of course, and during the discussion of digging up the body of Kal El with a view to bringing him back to life (don't ask), proffers: "If there's even a fraction of a chance it could work-". It's just as well Bruce inherited his fortune off his old man, because he sure as shit wouldn't win anything in a casino with that grasp of probability…
[ BACK ]
*3 To wit, and in no particular order of importance:
Q. Bruce Wayne and Alfred have quite a nice conversation near the start of the film about being left behind by a changing world. Was this going to be a running subtext at one point in the screenplay's development? Because it doesn't rear its head again.
Q. If Wonder Woman can move faster than bullets (shown in this film) and Superman can move faster than bullets (pretty much known anyway, I think), what exactly is The Flash bringing to this party other than sarcasm and millennial-angst?
Q. Why has Aquaman - the superhero who lives in the sea - got that straggly hair and beard? The barnet's not practical for swimming with, and he's getting out of the sea/river and just air-drying. He's going to smell like a wet dog most of the time.
Q. What the hell is Cyborg's dad playing at? Given that he's Miles Dyson out of Terminator 2, you'd think he'd know better than to arse around with robotics, 'trying to help'.
Q. Given that even the trailer throws in that gag about Diana Prince doing "nothing interesting" at the weekend, and the fact that the Bat-Signal can only realistically be used at night, why didn't Steppenwolf attack at 10:30 on a Monday morning? Or better still, during prison visiting-hours? The Justice League wouldn't be about, it'd be a piece of piss…
Q. Does… does Amber Heard think she's doing A British Accent™? Oh, mate… [ BACK ]
*4 Much like Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, it looks absolutely fine until the shot requires actual movement. Then it's like watching that devil-kid off the AA adverts all over again… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Firstly, a disclaimer. This is a civilian review of a geeky movie. I'm a fan of the Harry Potter timeline in that I've seen all the films in the cinema*1, but it goes no further than that. It's not that I'm dismissive of the series at all, but all those shelves in your brain which are used for storing interconnecting trivia about the history of Hogwarts are pretty much full of Star Wars stuff in mine. The jug can only hold so much water. I only make the point because I can tell (as a fan of film in general) that pretty much every scene of Fantastic Beasts is stuffed with Easter-Eggs, in-jokes and foreshadowing for future installments, yet I can't quite make the connections. No matter, as this is a movie designed to work for mainstream audiences as well as the hardcore faithful, but I'm getting ahead of myself...
1926. As a conservationist of magical creatures, Newt Scamander arrives in New York with a suitcase already twitching and bulging at the seams. When one of his subjects manages to escape into the vaults of a bank, Newt finds himself enlisting the help of Jacob Kowalski, a No-Maj (the American term for Muggle) baker to recover it. This interaction leads to the involvement of the magical sisters Porpentina and Queenie Goldstein, and uncovers a larger scurrilous plot at the Magical Congress of the USA (Ministry of Magic, basically).
Short version: I loved this. With the story and screenplay written directly by JK Rowling, the authenticity of the continuity never feels in question, and the previous hurdle of adapting novels for the screen is removed altogether. Yet rather than relying on the already-created universe for familiarity, setting the story 70 years earlier and on the other side of the world allows the canon to expand and adapt, rather than rehash. And using the incredibly-British™ Scamander as the audience's window into this new (old) world allows things to unfold naturally, as he experiences them. 1926 is also, it has to be said, a fairly dark period in American history in which to set a light-hearted fantasy movie. While the film doesn't dwell on this too much, it gives rise to more than a few socio-political digs in the script which, naturally, are relevant to both the film's internal setting, as well as the one the audience goes back home to.
And as stated above, every single scene in this movie is rich and bursting with detail (although from a cinematic point of view, it's perhaps worth noting that every exterior location feels like a soundstage, somehow). But the cramming doesn't stop there. Rowling's story spends the first act transitioning the audience over the Atlantic, so there are a lot of comparative references and cultural translations, but at the same time it's setting up pins for future installments (four loosely announced, so far) and remembering to make a solid story out of this film itself. It does, at at times, feel slightly too crammed.
On top of this, I'm not entirely convinced that Redmayne's Scamander is the right lead for the film. He's fantastic in the role itself (as per) under long-time Harry Potter director David Yates' auspices, but the character's bumbling and avoidance of eye-contact begins to hold things back a little. Typically, that's when you'd hand over to Tina and Queenie to pick up the protagonist-reins, but the film is hesitant to really let them take charge. As a result, I don't feel like I got to know any of the three characters as much as I wanted to. And it's coming to something when the most memorable and developed character in a film about wizards is the Muggle who wants to run a patisserie...
But, all in all, this is a fantastic way to begin the next volume in the cinematic series. Rowling knows her universe and she knows her audience; long may she be this central to both…
From the cast, no.
From the director, it's a strong punt.
Nope.
I didn't hear one, but the climactic sequence is pretty much 45 minutes of white-noise, so there could well be one buried that I didn't catch and the insane volume of a cinema auditorium.
Level 1: This film stars Nick Donald and Jorge Leon Martinez, both of whom are basically extras here and who were basically extras in The Force Awakens, but it still counts so you shut up.
*1 Although as it turns out, I've only reviewed one of the Harry Potter movies here, as the rest were released before I started the review-side of the blog full time. Alas, my local didn't take part in the recent Saturday-morning-catchup series (one a week for eight weeks), otherwise I'd have been well up for that.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
'From the guy who brought you Bridesmaids' boasts the poster for Judd Apatow's Trainwreck. Well firstly, he was only a producer on the movie, which (generally) is like attributing the production of your main course to the waiter who brings it to your table. Secondly, he's also "the guy" who brought us This is 40 and The Five-Year Engagement, so let's not get too fucking excited, eh?
Okay, perhaps that's overly cautious for the producer whose name was also on the fantastic Superbad and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but it's caution well earned for a Gross-out Comedy™ which also clambers over commitment, bereavement and self-confidence in its quest for a workable resolution. Like the weakest of Apatow's films, Trainwreck rarely feels like more than a collection of assembled sketches. Frequently very funny and occasionally very charming sketches, but in need of another draft, stronger narrative direction and an editor who's not afraid to trim the edges. It could really do with being about 20 minutes shorter, but in its current form that would do more harm than good.
That's not to say the film isn't amiable enough (no pun intended, because…), and Amy Schumer is the best of a very good cast, here. But the piñata of emotionally affecting comedy remains just out of reach, to the point where Trainwreck spends most of its second-act wishing it was Chasing Amy. Chasing Chasing Amy, if you will. The story's main dynamic, the relationship between Amy and Bill Hader's Aaron, isn't given enough attention to feel convincing, and the sub-plot with her care-home-ridden father feels tacked on, too, trying to inject some pathos to punctuate the laugher; except the laughter is already sporadic enough that it's not needed.
The committment-issues which should be the heart of the film remain unexplored, like the screenplay doesn't have the guts to wade any more than ankle-deep into those waters, and doesn't have the cojones to make Amy as 'out-of-control' as she's meant to be.
1) Worryingly, this is yet another studio-comedy where the only person who needs (or indeed seems) to 'change' for the final act is the lead female character; because being an interesting, funny and non-threateningly-attractive woman simply isn't good enough when you can stop having fun and be a bad cheerleader. All she needed was the right man to show her how wrong she'd been.
2) Distressingly, this is the character that Amy Schumer wrote for herself (even Apatow can't shoulder that one). And it's a shame, because Schumer's on great form in this movie with not enough to do.
It's faintly ironic that Amy's character Amy spends the film trying too hard to be something she's not. That's sort of the point of the movie, but at the same time you wonder if the lesson has been lost on those who need it most.
Certainly not the disaster the title jokingly implies, but it's definitely 'two lanes cordoned off and enforced speed restrictions'. Trainwreck isn't the vehicle for Amy.
That said, it's full of dick-jokes; you'll probably like it.
It's worth seeing, but it's not worth top-dollar. Cheap-Tuesday perhaps?
You won't get more than two or three watches out of it, so a rental will suffice.
Everyone's on great form here, they just don't have enough content to fill the run-time.
Oh, and why is Matthew Broderick in it as himself?
Is this part of a running gag that was cut at every other scene?
Sadly, not as much as it'd like.
Not as much as I'd like, either.
Not really.
There isn't.
Amy Schumer appeared in Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, a film which starred Keira 'Sabé Knightley.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
