Dec 152017
 
two reels

An autistic speedster (Ezra Miller), the mighty bro-dude who has some unimportant water powers (Jason Momoa), a bland self-doubting millionaire (Ben Affleck) with his sharp-tongued servant (Jeremy Irons), a magic tech man (Ray Fisher), and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) must band together to battle a giant CGI guy who is after three “destroy the world” MacGuffin boxes. Alone they are not enough, so they need to resurrect the lovable boy scout (Henry Cavill).

Well, it’s better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It’s much better. It’s not good, but it is better. BvS was created by an artist—a terrible, terrible artist. Justice League appears to have been made by an artistically-devoid, amateur committee. BvS attempted to say stupid things it shouldn’t have and did so poorly. Justice League doesn’t say anything at all. BvS is passionately hated by those with taste and passionately defended by those with no taste (it’s not clear if they love it, only that they are defending it). Justice League is not a film to elicit passion in anyone.

The troubled production of Justice League is well known. For anyone who has missed the last few years, this is the fifth film in the DC Extended Universe. Man of Steel was a critical mess as was Suicide Squad. BvS was despised by many, including me, and underperformed at the box office by at least 200 million dollars. Wonder Woman was a critical and financial hit, but it had a very different tone from the others. Justice League started as two films and then it was reduced to one. The studio pushed for a change in direction once they saw the swamp crud that was BvS, and again when Wonder Woman hit the right notes. Director Zack Snyder had to step away due to a personal tragedy, so Joss Whedon stepped in for reshoots that added up to a quarter of the movie and yet another change in direction. The studio (smartly) demanded an under two hour runtime, even though Snyder’s material required two and half to three hours. And Henry Cavill had grown a mustache for his role in the next Mission Impossible film and was not allowed to shave it, so his face needed to be CGI’d in the reshoots. All of that is visible in the finished product. It looks like it was edited by a high school AV club, but under the circumstances, perhaps no one could have put the pieces together successfully. For the first two-thirds, it is less of a coherent film, and more just a series of scenes plopped one after the other with no flow. The tone shifts from scene to scene and sometimes in a single scene. The messages of Man of Steel and BvS are ignored or contradicted and continuity is in shambles. Yes, Superman did die in the earlier film, but now he was always loved by all—a beacon of hope to the world. He’d been happy and comfortable as a hero and Wonder Woman knew him well. (Oh, and remember Bruce Wayne’s future dream of the parademons? The filmmakers don’t.) Well, I can’t argue with ignoring BvS.

It is harder to explain why the CGI is so poor. Cavill’s face looks weird from time to time, but that’s nowhere as distracting as the horrible work in the fight scenes where the actors are clearly replaced by cartoons. And every time Steppenwolf appears I was ripped out of the film. He is the worst superhero film villain in conception and execution in the last thirty years, and that’s including Apocalypse, Malekith, and the Enchantress. He has no personality, no back-story, and no motivation, and looks worse than Parallax from Green Lantern. I could defend such shoddy work in a SyFy channel movie, but this project cost 250-350 million dollars. Where did it go? Yeah, I’m sure it cost big bucks to recolor the film from dark and dreary to cheesy, plus that whole mustache thing apparently cost enough to feed a small city for a year, but there’s still a good $100 million lost somewhere.

We get very little character development, no arcs, and not nearly enough material to care about any of these heroes. The actors do the best they can. Gal Godot continues to be the MVP and is still charismatic, which is a trick considering her part is underwritten with an unnecessary faux-feud with Batman. Affleck manages a mildly amusing Batman (do we want an amusing Batman?) but I swear I saw him looking for the exits to the franchise. I’ve seen worse Batmen. The others don’t come off as well. Miller is comic relief, and I can see how, with better direction, he might have been funny, but his jokes don’t land. And I’m pretty certain that every single line he had was an attempted-joke. Momoa’s bro-dude shtick should have been entertaining or annoying, but it doesn’t have the energy to be either, and I’m afraid I’ve lost any enthusiasm for the upcoming Aquaman film. Fisher is just tech-magic guy. He doesn’t do anything and it looks like he had a character arc that was cut. Cavill…well…he’s more complicated. His take on Superman (call it Snyder’s take) has been terrible. And when he is in scenes clearly shot by Snyder, he keeps his scowl. But the later Whedon shots are another matter. The acting isn’t stunning, but Cavill can be fun when he smiles and his rendition of the boy scout Superman in the later parts of the film is pretty good (And no, at this point, Superman being in the film is not a spoiler).

The plot isn’t much of anything, but with some good character interaction, a solid villain, and some nice fights, the slight plot would have served well enough. But as is, it is another hole in the film. Nothing has weight. Nothing matters. which is another reason the fights don’t work. The CGI is bad and combat is just jumping around, but it is the lack of and weight to the plot and characters that makes the fights nothing but pointless dances.

The closest comparison I can think of is the original 1967 Casio Royale that fell apart in production and a film-of-sorts was constructed from the pieces as best they could. And like that film, there’s some fun moments and some pleasant quips in Justice League, but the whole doesn’t work. It never had a chance. They had some kind of garbage pile, so they constructed a film not to be good, but to avoid being a disaster. So, win one for Warner Bros. It isn’t a disaster, and that should be its tag line.

 Reviews, Superhero Tagged with:
Dec 152017
 
three reels

Following immediately after Dawn of the Planet of the Apes such that a recent viewing of the previous entry is required to understand this one, Caesar (motion-captured Andy Serkis) leads a band of apes that are being hunted by fanatical humans under the command of the deranged Colonel (Woody Harrelson). An attack by The Colonel kills Caesar’s wife and child, so Caesar sends his followers to what he thinks is a safe place while he and three other apes set out to find The Colonel. Along the way they meet a mute human girl (Amiah Miller) and a circus chimp who goes by “Bad Ape.” Things do not go well for anyone.

War for the Planet of the Apes is a technological wonder. Perhaps you want to start a film discussion somewhere else, maybe with story or character, but any discussion of this Ape series, and particularly this film, has to begin with the special effects because they are like nothing before. Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy have great motion-capture characters, but not this good. Previously, films have gotten away with their so-close effects because there’s a degree of unreality built in. But War for the Planet of the Apes is shooting for the real world, one that happens to have talking chimps. And it succeeds. They couldn’t have done better if they’d genetically engineered super apes and given them the roles.

The third part of the Ape trilogy (and it is a third part) goes epic in its world building, but small in its story. This is all character. What The Colonel describes as THE most important conflict in history isn’t between armies (though there are some small armies), but between personalities. And due to the previously mentioned technological advancement, there’s tons of personality on display. A couple humans get time to emote (so much emoting), but primarily it is apes. And it pulls you in; well, it pulled me in. By the end I cared about Caesar and Maurice and Cornelia and Luca and token Nova. And this is a full tragedy, in the theatrical meaning of the term. We have a great man (well, ape), with a tragic flaw, which will doom him. It is his fate. And as that fate is expressed primarily in discussions rather than actions, this really is Planet of the Apes as Shakespeare would have written it. Well… Almost.

You see, War for the Planet of the Apes suffers from the RESPECT problem. It so respects the material, and so wants you to respect it, that it forgets that you should be entertained by it. It is a mistake often made with Shakespeare adaptations, but never made by Shakespeare himself. He knew that in a truly dark tale, such as Macbeth, you need a few clowns, a few moments of levity, and maybe a few of excitement to get the blood flowing. But such moments are in scarce supply here. War for the Planet of the Apes is suffocating in its grimness. It never changes in tone. The characters—those that speak—speak every line with the same, slow intensity. It’s two hours of simmering. A score that wasn’t the musical equivalent of grief would have helped. This is a serious film. A very serious film, and you better know it. Every scene, ever decision, is to make it clear to the audience that this is the most serious film they’ve ever seen. Logan? Oh yeah, that’s serious, but not this serious. You think aging, mental deterioration, death, and loss are serious? Hold my beer! We are an hour and 49 minutes in before the movie cracks its one joke—that apes throw poo. The film manages an exciting climax, but it is too late by then.

War even tries to be respectful with its fan service. They’d have been better off avoiding that altogether and just going their own way, but I know, as did the filmmakers, that the series exists because of fan service. So the nods to the original five films continue as the child is named Nova (“Hey, did you see the original Plane of the Apes? It had a Nova in it too. Isn’t that cool!”).

So a movie that clamors for my respect, get it. I respect War For the Planet of the Apes; I just don’t like it very much.

 

The previous films in the trilogy are Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014). The original series consisted of Planet of the Apes (1968), Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), and Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973). The first film was remade as Planet of the Apes (2001)

Dec 142017
  December 14, 2017

basilrathboneAn actor with both one of the most distinctive profiles and most distinctive voices in Hollywood, Basil Rathbone became identified with Sherlock Holmes to his dismay. He should have taken more joy in the connection as few of his other lead roles have been remembered. He was in a large number of classic films, but, except for Son of Frankenstein, always as a supporting player and usually as a villain. It’s lucky for viewers that he made a superb villain. He was in some of the very best films ever made as the antagonist.

But before getting to those masterpieces, some honorable mentions—far more than normal if I counted separately some movies I’ve grouped together. First, a few cases where he excels but the film does not: Rathbone’s pre-code charmer in Sin Takes a Holiday (1930), his most psychotic villain in A Night of Terror (1937), and his comedic pick-pocket instructor in Heartbeat (1946). Then an honorable mention for the comedy Tovarich (1937), where Rathbone has only a small part. And a big honorable mention to his 14 Sherlock Holmes films, particularly The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939). And finally an honorable mention to The Court Jester (1955), a rollicking Swashbuckling comedy starring Danny Kaye. and #9 on the list below if the list went to 9.

#8 – A Tale of Two Cities (1935) — It does a passable job of translating a great novel for the screen, and while the directing is mediocre and several actors fail, Ronald Colman is excellent. Rathbone is very good in a small role. [Also on the Ronald Colman list]

#7 – If I Were King (1938) — A witty costume comedy/drama that is really a series of brilliant conversations between Ronald Colman (as a roguish poet) and Rathbone (as the king). [Also on the Ronald Colman list]

#6 – Son of Frankenstein (1939)  A surprisingly good third entry in the franchise. It is seeped in German expressionism. Karloff gets a reduced role; Rathbone is the lead, but Bela Lugosi steals the film in what is probably his best performance. (My Review) [Also on the Bela Lugosi list and the Boris Karloff list]

#5 – The Dawn Patrol (1938) — One of the finest war pictures, with Rathbone, David Niven, and Errol Flynn as WWI pilots in horrible situations, having heroism forced upon them. [Also on the Errol Flynn list]

#4 – We’re No Angels (1955) — Humphrey Bogart’s last great performance, with Rathbone as the villain. It is a Christmas comedy and absolutely lovely. (Full Review) [Also on the Humphrey Bogart list]

#3 – Captain Blood (1935) — The first of the three great Errol Flynn Swashbucklers. Rathbone plays a pirate who ends up on the wrong side of Peter Blood. (Full Critique) [Also on the Errol Flynn list and the Olivia de Havilland list]

#2 – The Mark of Zorro (1940) — No Swashbuckler is more fun. Tyrone Power is the masked swordsman who pretends to be a fop. Rathbone is a ruthless general. (Full Critique)

#1 – The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) — The best classic Swashbuckler and one of the Best films ever made. It also contains the finest cinematic sword-fight of all time between Errol Flynn and Rathbone. (Full Critique) [Also on the Errol Flynn list and the Olivia de Havilland list]

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists

Dec 122017
  December 12, 2017

gingerrogersGinger Rogers will forever be known as the dancing partner of Fred Astaire; they fit together. Together they made some of the greatest film musicals of all time. She could manage the steps, as well as both the sophisticated and common attitudes needed for the comedy and romance. Astaire danced with others who were technically better, but no one who was such a perfect partner. Apart from Astaire she strove to have a “serious” career (after a group of “let’s put on a Broadway show” films) that led to a string of turgid melodramas that she could never pull off—not that anyone could have made Kitty Foyle watchable. Her best “solo” works were comedies.

An honorable mention goes to the anthology film, Tales of Manhattan (1942) simply for the large number of golden age stars in it.

#8 – The Major and the Minor (1942) — 31-year-old Rogers pretends to be a child to get a half price train ticket and ends up with Ray Milland at a military school. As this is a romantic comedy, they’d never make it today. [Also on the Ray Milland list]

#7 – Carefree (1938) — A lesser Astaire/Rogers film which is more of a screwball comedy than their typical musicals.

#6 – Star of Midnight (1935) — A ripoff of the Thin Man series; if I can’t get another real one, close is good enough. William Powell is a gentleman detective—this time a lawyer—and Rogers is the girl who wants to marry him.

#5 – Flying Down to Rio (1933) — The first pairing of Astaire and Rogers, though not as the leads. It was intended as a vehicle for breathtaking Mexican actress Dolores del Rio and she’s good, but the pair steal the film. Beyond the music, there’s the exquisite and totally unreal world. Brazil never looked like this but I wish it did. This is a pre-code film; jokes about rounded heels (look it up) and what South American women have that’s better below the equator would have been censored a few years later. Likewise the transparent tops of the female wing-walkers. [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

#4 – Swing Time (1936) – The 6th Astaire/Rogers film, it has some of the best dance numbers, but with a weaker script than their earlier films. The humor fails and the world is not as magical, none of which matters when Astaire sings “The Way You Look Tonight.” [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

#3 – Shall We Dance (1937) – Another Astaire/Rogers, with another assist from the always good Edward Everett Horton and Eric Blore. I find this to be the funniest Astaire film with Astaire playing a jazz dancer who has made it in ballet so must put on a persona of an arrogant Russian. The songs are solid, with “They Can’t Take That Away from Me” the standout. [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

#2 – The Gay Divorcee (1934) – The 2nd Astaire/Rogers film, and the first with them as leads, this one has Rogers attempting to get a divorce from her absent husband and mistaking Astaire as the gigolo she planned to use for cause. Horton and Blore appear again. [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

#1 – Top Hat (1935) – The 4th Astaire/Rogers picture and they’d perfected the routine. The jokes are solid and the fantasy world of shining marble is wondrous and where I want to live (much less depression era audiences). And of course the dance numbers are fantastic. Rogers falls for a very forward Astaire until she incorrectly deduces that he’s the husband of her good friend. Horton, Blore, and Helen Broderick add to the comedy. [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists