Review: Justice League (UK Cert 12A)

SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.

After the death of Superman, the world seems to be a place without hope. When an alien threat arrives and places the planet in danger, Bruce Wayne (with the help of Diana Prince) decides to track down others with superpowers to help fight against this new foe. 

Predictably, general critical response to Justice League has been middling to poor. At the time of writing, it currently stands with a 41% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes (although, tellingly, an audience rating of 84%). Film is an artform, not a science. It's not something that often deals with facts (other than those concrete verifiables like box office receipts, cast and crew, any awards hype, and so on). It thrives on opinion. And that's all that film criticism is: it's someone's opinion. Art is ultimately subjective and the opinions of those of the viewing public- who pay to put their bums on seats and watch the film- are as valid as those of the professional critics.  

My opinion is this: I thought Justice League was a lot better than I feared it would be. 

So what's good? Well, the cast are pretty strong (although Affleck doesn't seem as comfortable here; more on that later). Of the new characters, it's Ezra Miller as Barry Allen/The Flash who comes off the best. Socially awkward, quite geeky, he takes to this brave new world of heroes like an enthusiastic puppy. He also gets a lot of the humour. He gets a particularly good scene opposite Ray Fisher as Victor Stone/Cyborg where they attempt to bond over digging up Superman's coffin. Fisher is decent as Cyborg, although the character feels less developed than the others. Jason Momoa is an imposing, charismatic presence as Arthur Curry/Aquaman and also gets a nice scene where he unwittingly gets a bit too close to the lasso of Hestia. 

Henry Cavill is as strong as he always has been in the role of Clark Kent/Superman. He obviously doesn't make an appearance until just after halfway through and his frenzied fight against the League is pretty impressive. Luckily, there's a deus ex machina to stop him from pummelling them into the dirt (and it isn't as ridiculous as the 'Martha' moment in Batman V Superman). Gal Gadot is assured and powerful as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. She's a de facto leader to the group and the film lifts whenever she's on screen. 

As for the supporting cast, generally strong although with such a large cast, some do get shortchanged. Amy Adams doesn't get much to do as Lois but she's good (although they've inexplicably cut the rather tender scene shown in the trailer where Clark mentions the ring). I did want to see more of J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon, although he did get a particularly good one-liner which I enjoyed. Jeremy Irons is still wonderful as Alfred whilst there's a nice cameo by Billy Crudup as Henry Allen (Barry's father). 

The slow-mo effects on The Flash are amusing (imagine the 'Time In A Bottle' sequence from X-Men: Days Of Future Past or the 'Sweet Dreams' bit in X-Men: Apocalypse and you're on the right track). Danny Elfman's score is powerful and positive and has a few nice little Easter Eggs for those who care to listen. The scene of Superman's resurrection is probably the best sequence in the film. Also, the lighting seems to have improved; there's not a lot of gloomy darkness and I could actually see what was going on most of the time. 

That's not to say the film is perfect. It's far from it. The script is uneven and occasionally very info-dumpy; it does have to properly introduce three new characters who the audience have only ever really seen in passing, but it all feels a bit clunky (especially Aquaman's little tete-a-tete with Mera). It would perhaps have made more sense to have had at least the Aquaman and Flash solo movies prior to the release of Justice League (to cut down on this). And just an FYI- London doesn't have city blocks!

Also tonally, the film is a bit of a mess- Joss Whedon's and Zack Snyder's directorial styles are very different and you can tell what's been added and what's been reshot (the farrago over Superman's CGI upper lip notwithstanding). It's why Ben Affleck feels a little less comfortable in the role than he did in Batman V Superman. There he was the tortured, brooding Batman; here, he's cracking wise. There's also an over-reliance on slow-mo (understandable when you're talking about The Flash, but it soon becomes wearying). 

However, my main complaint against the film is the villain, Steppenwolf. The CGI on him is massively shoddy (he looks like a mid-2000s Playstation character) and the motivation he's given is paper-thin. Plus, the curse of the DCEU strikes again with a massive CGI blow-out final battle which is difficult to keep track of. Bizarrely, it also feels like there's very little at stake: the human consequences of the alien invasion are pinned onto one Russian family who are barricaded into their home as the Parademons swarm. There's no jeopardy.

So yes, the film has its issues. Given the circumstances of Snyder having to withdraw due to a dreadful family tragedy then Warner Bros hiring Whedon to finish/reshoot the film, it was always going to have issues. But it's nowhere near as bad as some reviewers would have you believe. It is a superhero movie. It's two hours of- dare I say it?- fun. Not as good as Wonder Woman, but head-and-shoulders above both Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad. 

Rating: 4 out of 5

Tez

Review: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice (UK Cert 12A)

SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.

Let me preface this review with a remark. This movie is essentially critic-proof. It doesn't really matter that it currently has a critic score of 28% on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of writing; the audience score is currently 72%. It's already made over $424 million worldwide so it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference whether I say 'this is the greatest film ever made in the history of cinema' or 'watching the entire Twilight saga in one sitting is preferable to this inane pile of garbage'. What I will say is this: there was a lot I liked in the film, and a lot I didn't. 

The film has, since its very inception, been a polarizing one. When this project was announced at Comic-Con in July 2013, it broke the Internet. Reactions ranged from 'best thing ever' to '#ruined' and the furore only intensified when Ben Affleck was cast in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Over 30 petitions sprung up online, ranging from removing him from the role to trying to make it illegal for Affleck to play either Batman or any other superhero on film. Unsurprisingly, when the casting of Jesse Eisenberg and Gal Gadot were announced as Lex Luthor and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, there was more vitriol online. Eisenberg was neither old enough nor imposing enough; Gadot was bizarrely too small to play an Amazonian princess. Rumours abounded a month or so ago that the studios were 'nervous' about the film, which was instantly pooh-poohed. As it turns out, they had a right to be nervous. 

With a film that's offering the potential of two of the greatest superheroes in the whole of comic book history coming together for an epic smackdown, you might expect to feel exhilarated, thrilled, engaged, your heart in your mouth and your bum on the edge of your seat. You don't expect to feel bored. And I did. For quite a lot of the film. 

The script- by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer- is so portentous (occasionally dropping into pretentious), so doom-laden and so without nuance or subtlety that it's a tough watch in places. You're never left to intuit how people feel; the characters tell you blatantly and outright. There's an over-reliance on dream sequences- albeit Batman's fevered hallucination of what would happen if Superman isn't checked is visually interesting- and do we really need to see Bruce's parents being killed again? Apparently, we do, because it's important that we know that Bruce Wayne's mum was called Martha. This becomes vitally important later on as it's the only reason Batman doesn't stomp Superman's face into the dirt. Because their mums have the first same name. Frankly, that's shoddy and lazy writing that a creative writing student would be embarrassed to hand in. 

I guess one of my other major issues with the film is that I don't really get on with Zack Snyder's style of direction. One of my major criticisms of Man Of Steel was that the final fight sequence was too big, too frenetic, too hyperactive. Well, it's the same here, especially the final smackdown between Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman against Doomsday. I gave up trying to figure out who was doing what to whom in most of the fight sequences (not helped by the fact that there's some really dreadful lighting choices made throughout). I get that the worlds of Metropolis and Gotham are supposed to be gritty and dark, but Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy conveyed that same atmosphere without decimating the lighting budget. There's so much shaky handheld camerawork- which always makes me feel nauseous- and there's some really odd editing choices too. 

It also doesn't help that the already laden dialogue is further weighted down by a ridiculously bombastic score by Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL. This did have one saving grace however: the majorly kick-ass theme for Wonder Woman, whose electric violin riff brought some much needed life to proceedings. 

That said, it's not all bad. Generally speaking (with one major exception), I enjoyed the acting. For all those naysayers who criticised Affleck's casting and derided him before he'd even said a line of dialogue, you're wrong. He works really well as Batman, as a grizzled, older, more world-weary fighter who's had 20 years of fighting and for what? He also makes a particularly good Bruce Wayne and the script manages to drop a couple of interesting hints which will hopefully be explored in the standalone Batfleck film. Henry Cavill remains as stoic and dignified as he was in Man Of Steel, whilst Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane were all solid support. 

My two favourite performances came from Gal Gadot, whose sensual yet determined Diana Prince added a much-needed spark throughout and who commanded the screen as Wonder Woman in the last battle, and Jeremy Irons who was frankly born to play Alfred. Here, he's a slightly more sarcastic and abrasive but is still the faithful old retainer, delivering slightly heavy-handed speeches to Master Bruce. 

The bum note is Jesse Eisenberg who was so annoying as Lex Luthor that I wished my superpower was to be able to reach into the screen so i could slap the irritating little runt. He wasn't menacing, he wasn't imposing, he wasn't any kind of credible threat. He was mooning around on screen with a performance full of quirky tics rather than any real characterisation and basically acting like a spoiled little brat. As much as I actively dislike Kevin Spacey's performance in Superman Returns, at least his Luthor felt like a threat.

I also liked the cameos from the other nascent members of the Justice League which provided enough of a hint of what's to come without feeling too much like a cynical ploy (although there are a few bits, especially at the end, where the fact that this is now going to be its own franchise is celebrated a bit too blatantly). There are a couple of very striking visuals as well, such as Superman saving the little girl from the fire during the Mexican Day of the Dead. 

Ultimately, this film was underwhelming for me, which was a disappointment. I do feel like some of the criticism that the film has come in for has been a little harsh, but there's only so much you can do to detract from a film's inherent flaws. That said, I am still intrigued to see where the DC Expanded Universe goes from here. I'm really looking forward to both Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. 

Rating: 3 out of 5

Tez

Review: High-Rise (UK Cert: 15)

I have a love/hate relationship with Ben Wheatley. Kill List was unnerving and – at times – bloody terrifying, right up until the ending. Sorry, but if I have to go on Google to try and work out what the hell happened in the last few minutes, then the film’s not done its job.  With his follow-up, Sightseers, it depended how sick and un-PC your sense of humour was. Me, I loved it. A Field in England was little more than an excuse to show off Laurie Rose’s cinematography skills (a plot would have helped). Now, here we are with Wheatley’s latest: High-Rise. You might wonder why Wheatley’s new film is adapted from a J.G. Ballard novel that’s forty years old, but, in the Tory Britain we live in today, it’s soothsayer, prophet of doom relevant.

Tom Hiddleston (Avengers Assemble, Only Lovers Left Alive) is Doctor Robert Laing, who moves into a flash new apartment block. Meeting his neighbours, he realises that, while everyone pays the same rent, not everyone is treated equally; the wealthier folk on the higher floors have electricity, hot water, full access to the facilities whenever they want, while those on the lower levels are forced to make do with electric at certain times (if the power comes on at all) and wait around several weeks for any maintenance issues to get fixed. Tensions mount and it’s not long before anarchy descends, with rape, murder and pillaging becoming as everyday as putting out the bins.

Wheatley’s long-time cinematographer Laurie Rose is back behind the lens, and once again he comes up with some creative, not seen anything like it before imagery: Hiddleston taking out his frustrations on the walls of his apartment while he paints; it’s both cathartic and oddly erotic. The aftermath of an orgy, the flat now a dive, bathed in intense white light, while some of the weary, hungover guests still joylessly rut away. There’s more than a passing hint of the meticulousness and symmetry of Stanley Kubrick’s framing; you’re both entranced and repulsed by what you see, à la A Clockwork Orange or Eyes Wide Shut. Wheatley made the smart decision of keeping the novel’s seventies setting. The wallpaper, gigantic sideburns, and vintage cars make High-Rise unlike anything you will have seen for a good long while.

The trouble is High-Rise’s subtext, it’s not exactly subtle. Thirty minutes in and you already know who’s in the firing line and where things are going. As the divide between Britain’s upper and lower class widens, the country is destined to come crumbling down; The British people are distracted by celebrity and consumerism, ignorant to the pressing problems going on around them. You can’t argue with what Ballard was trying to say in his novel (spookily, released on the eve of Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister), it’s how Wheatley and screenwriter Amy Jump force feed you the social commentary, so much so, you’re wondering what else the film has to offer. The answer? Not a lot else.

I get that you’re meant to judge the characters you see onscreen rather than care about them, the issue with High-Rise is that nothing vaguely thrilling or attention grabbing happens to anyone. Malcolm McDowell’s Alex in A Clockwork Orange was a loathsome, hideous human being, but you were compelled to watch because his own brutality was matched by the brutality of the state in trying to make him “better”. Here, there’s no build-up to the Lord of the Flies anarchy that ensues, it just happens, and keeps happening, and keeps happening, and doesn’t go anywhere. Rose’s cinematography and Mark Tildesley’s production design can only do so much. Without a narrative, without some significant change in the characters, there’s nothing to keep you watching.

The cast look like they’re sleepwalking through the film, with virtually nothing to do. I’ve not read Ballard’s novel, but maybe the point of Hiddleston’s Doctor Laing is that he sees the tower block rotting from the inside and is indifferent to it all? Whatever the reason, Hiddleston has little to do acting-wise except be icy, reserved, and shag his way through the female cast.

Jeremy Irons (The Lion King, Die Hard with a Vengeance), as the tower block’s architect, Anthony Royal, has some occasional weighty dialogue to get you thinking (“I wanted this building to be a crucible for change… Clearly, I missed something”.), but apart from an impressive plum British accent, and an even more impressive white suit, Irons plays your typical, authority figure gone mad, Doctor Caligari role.

Luke Evans (The Hobbit, Fast and Furious 6) is the only cast member given any real acting work, as journalist and documentary filmmaker Richard Wilder, though his transformation from a morally dubious, opportunistic, seventies Piers Morgan to embracing the anarchy around him just seems to happen. He goes off screen one minute and comes back a changed man.

High-Rise is less a film, more a series of chaotic scenes of Britain’s well-to-do killing and ripping each other’s clothes off. It’s like something you expect to see at the Tate Modern. There’s no tension, barely any humour, and quickly outstays its welcome (and at almost two hours, that’s a long time). If the BAFTAs had an award for style over substance, High-Rise would win it hands down.

2 out of 5

Matt