Skip to main content

No Grandeur for The Justice League


After the surprise dose in quality of Wonder Woman, DC’s Cinematic Universe is back to normal with Justice League.
Justice League is a severely disappointing movie in a film universe without a great track record to begin with. But in a way, it hurts more than Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad, despite being overall better than both, because it’s the big team up movie of the DC characters; and the Justice League in title alone has a great degree of dignity to it. By all accounts it’s a more interesting team than the Avengers at Marvel, yet ultimately its’ movie isn’t a fraction as engrossing as theirs.
With Earth in a climate of fear following the death of Superman (Henry Cavill), an ancient villain called Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds) returns to Earth with an army to conquer. Aware of this threat, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) goes about assembling a team to combat him. With Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), he recruits the Atlantean Aquaman (Jason Momoa), a young man with super-speed called the Flash (Ezra Miller), and a cybernetically reconstructed athlete dubbed Cyborg (Ray Fisher).
The generic story is the first real problem, being a very basic villain coming out of nowhere forcing a team together plot. But The Avengers had the same problem, however it was better written. Which is strange because Joss Whedon worked on both scripts. But this doesn’t feel like one of his screenplays at all, lacking the energy, personality and acerbic wit of his work. The film suffers too from Sudden Backstory Syndrome in which each character who hasn’t had their own film yet is given a very awkward and rushed exposition dump on where they came from. In fact a lot of the movie is rushed, which I get given how abruptly the conflict arises, but it doesn’t allow the audience to feel for the characters and their developing comradery. There’s one scene that seems to exist purely so we can see members of the Justice League fight (again, because The Avengers did it) which makes absolutely no sense, is completely out of character, and is never explained.
Ben Affleck is still a very good Batman despite his occasional habit to phone it in in some of his Bruce Wayne scenes. Likewise, Gal Gadot is still great as Wonder Woman, though certainly not to the lengths she was in her own movie earlier this year. Nonetheless, she’s the highlight of all her scenes and the best part of the movie as a whole. Jason Momoa also impressed me as Aquaman, having more charisma than any of the other newcomers and somehow making an underwater battle scene work. Henry Cavill is back as Superman, though I can’t say much more. He’s still as perfectly decent in the role as he’s always been. Ray Fisher is serviceable despite the constant poor CGI surrounding his performance. And Ezra Miller’s take on Barry Allen is a mixed bag. He’s the comic relief of the team, but his comedy is often pretty lame. His costume is also a little too mechanical, not diversifying him much from Batman or Cyborg. Connie Nielsen reprises her role from Wonder Woman, and Jeremy Irons is once again an enjoyable Alfred. Amy Adams is back as Lois Lane for no good reason, as is Diane Lane as Martha Kent. But at least the movie gives us J.K. Simmons in a small role as Jim Gordon, proving even with minimal screen-time, he’s fantastic in the part.
But another huge weakness of the film is the villain, and while Ciaran Hinds is a good actor, his character is a spectacularly forgettable antagonist. Being entirely CG and with bland aspirations to world domination there’s nothing unique to him at all, and he might be the DCCU’s weakest villain thus far -at least Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was memorably horrible. The CG was generally quite bad, with the evil drones in particular having no substance. And while the action scenes were for the most part good, utilizing excellent teamwork, they were very effects heavy, taking some of the fun out. And of course there’s Cavill’s infamous moustache, which he grew for another movie and had to be edited out of re-shoots on Justice League ...and it is distractingly noticeable and off-putting.
The biggest disappointment with Justice League is not that it’s bad but that it’s dull. Dull and underwhelming. This is a movie centred around some of the greatest heroes in pop culture, and it’s often less entertaining and less grand than Murder on the Orient Express. At the end of the day, it’s a movie that’s likely to be beaten at the box office by the third instalment of a franchise based on a secondary Marvel superhero. And that’s a very sad defeat for an alliance of this clout.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more