Justice League - Not great but not awful

The DCEU (D.C. Extended Universe) movies have not been doing very well regarding execution and quality. Ever since the release of Batman V. Superman" Dawn of Justice (BVS), a depressing, morally repugnant and mean-spirited slog of a film, which I am now officially declaring the absolute worst movie of 2016 (this includes the ultimate cut), Warner Brothers has been struggling to survive their own train wreck. The only DCEU movie that is actually any good is Wonder Woman, as that film is actually a superhero movie about heroics, having the courage and desire to help people and the power of love. Which is what all superheroes are ultimately about in some shape or form. After all of that, I still had no faith in the Justice League movie.

Regular readers of my blog will remember my essay on the production woes of Justice League, so rather than recap the issues here in this review, I will instead kindly direct you to the said article below for more details. The short version is that the Justice League underwent a truck ton of last minute changes, creative differences, and massive tonal shifts, that nothing about the film's creation made the movie itself sound even remotely promising. So, imagine my surprise when I went to the theater to see a late night showing of Justice League, and found myself...enjoying it. Really, no kidding, I watched the whole film, massive flaws and all, and I still found myself laughing, smiling, and having a pretty good time. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the main reason for said enjoyment was the lack of Zach Snyder's ill-advised guidance. More on that in a moment.

The story takes place about a year or so after the events of BVS as the whole world mourns the loss of Superman, while Batman is preparing for an upcoming mighty threat foreshadowed in said previous movie, by building up a team of other superheroes to combat it. His journey leads him to recruit The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg, who all side with him and Wonder Woman to prepare for the arrival of Steppenwolf, an evil demi-god bent on destroying and conquering the Earth. This threat turns out to be so powerful that Batman decides the best way to tackle it, is to bring Superman back from the dead so he may once again become the worlds savior, and restore hope to all humanity.

The biggest problem with this film is also, incidentally, its greatest strength. As part of Warner Brothers and DC Comics attempt to salvage their own trainwreck, one of the creative decisions made in this film is to basically pretend that BVS never actually happened, and pretend that the events leading up to this movie were entirely different and not yet chronicled. On the down-side, this is yet another example of DC Comics lousy habit of ignoring the problems they created, rather than trying to actually fix them. As such, Justice League is filled with blatant continuity errors, plot holes and tonal shifts that would otherwise make the experience annoying to sit through. On the other hand, this makes Justice League a much better film. Because by ignoring the events of BVS, the movie takes it upon itself to become a better experience with likable characters, great action sequences, and a greater understanding and appreciation for heroics and saving lives.

As I stated before, I suspect the main reason Justice League is better than it could have been, is due in large part to the absence of Zach Snyder. When Mr. Snyder had to stand down from post-production due to an unfortunate family tragedy, the reins were picked up by Joss Whedon, who was initially brought on as a co-writer for the screenplay. He then proceeded to reshoot most of the film, change the intended tone, and drastically change the color pallete. As such, while it may be impossible to determine precisely how much of the film was indeed Whedon's or Snyder's, I am of the firm opinion that Justice League is, in reality, a Joss Whedon film, and they left Zach Snyder's name in the directors credit to be polite. Which, given the circumstances, I have no objections to.

Despite this film having dramatic changes in tone, glaring continuity errors, zero pay off to the events previously depicted in BVS, and a color palette that looks more aesthetically pleasing but not well suited to the production design, Justice League is a much better film than it has any right to be. It's a DC superhero movie that better reflects what superheroes are all about, and is an excellent step in the right direction for the future of DCEU movies.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Surprisingly...yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Maybe.

Why?
While it is an excellent attempt to salvage something better out of something that was still potentially horrible, it may not be entirely good enough to justify a theater ticket.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Justice League essay

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) - All aboard in every sense of the phrase

One of the unexpected benefits of the rise of popularity for the superhero genre is it has given some filmmakers the leverage to tell more classic stories with non-superpowered characters, who are still superheroes in their respective way. Before there were characters with capes and God-like powers, there were people with talents and skills far beyond what most other people could comprehend. These were characters like Sherlock Holmes with his uncanny abilities at deductive reasoning, and Paladin (Richard Boone) from Have Gun, Will Travel with his desire for justice, profound wisdom, and lightning fast quick draw. And of course, the reason we are here today, Hercule Poirot, one of the greatest detectives in mystery fiction, making a triumphant return to the big screen thanks to one of Hollywoods real superheroes, Kenneth Branagh.

For those of you who may not already know, Hercule Poirot is the creation of Agatha Christie. An accomplished British mystery writer who has had her works adapted to the big screen many times before. You know those murder mysteries where all the suspects are placed in one room in a large mansion as the detective breaks down the events of the puzzle leading up to who the killer was? It was the works of Agatha Christie which made that famous, both in practice and in parody. Her most famous novel, Murder on the Orient Express, was adapted to the silver screen before in 1974 by Sidney Lumet. As of this writing, I have not yet seen that version, but I plan to do so very soon. Once again, I must clarify that because I have not yet read this book, I cannot attest to the films accuracy or lack thereof. As always, this is a review of the film strictly as a film.

The story takes place in the 1930s. It follows the great detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), a talented and skilled detective burdened with a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder which causes him to see everything that is out of place always, along with a passionate disposition for right and wrong, and delivering justice. Seeking a much-desired vacation, he boards a luxury train called The Orient Express. Also aboard the train and some colorful characters all played by accomplished actors who all get their equal time in the spotlight (more on them in a minute). As the train runs through the snowy mountains, it is struck by an avalanche and is stuck on the tracks until the repair team frees the engine from the fallen snow. Right around the same time, one of the passengers is found murdered, and Poirot is the only one who can solve the mystery and set things right once again.

Short version:

This film is wonderful. The acting is superb, the directing is on point, the cinematography is gorgeous, the editing is fluid, and it has one of the best commentaries on the human condition I have seen this year. Without going into too much more detail, I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that you see this movie immediately. Now, if you're interested to read further as to why I love this film so much, then please, by all means, read on.

Long Version:

This film was directed by Kenneth Branagh, whom I previously referred to as one of Hollywood's real superheroes. Born in Belfast and classically trained in Shakespearian theater, he made his directorial debut with his film adaptation of Henry V, which earned him Oscar nominations for directing and acting. Since then he went on to direct and star in more Shakespeare adaptations, including his most famous take on Hamlet. An unabridged four hour long epic in every way. Branagh is also no stranger to murder mysteries. In 1991 he directed and starred in a great mystery thriller titled Dead Again. Which, if you have not yet seen, please do so.

What makes Kenneth Branagh such an incredible director is that he always seems to be having fun, and it shows. His energy as an actor showcases his unique talent to put every ounce of emotion into a line regardless of if it deserves it or not. Furthermore, as a director, he has a keen eye for composition and movement. He is very fond of the long take which he uses beautifully, as every long take is full of texture and fluid flow. Almost like riding a roller coaster. It is this very sense of dominant individual style that makes this old story feel fresh, and I am so happy to see him return to the director's chair. I have missed him a great deal.

The cinematography is stunning. The film was shot in a unique format called Glorious 65mm. Which, incidentally, was the same format that Branagh used to shoot his adaptation of Hamlet as mentioned earlier. Which was also, until recently, the last film to be shot on said format. One of the benefits from Glorious 65mm is that it is a large format of cinema. As such, it is capable of recreating detail, color, and sharpness to an almost supernatural level that standard film has yet to match. In other words, if a conventional film is equivalent to color pencils, Glorious 65mm is equal to oil paint. Even though you have to see this format on a larger screen to benefit from it, I found its standard presentation still glorious.

The acting is where this film gets to shine the most. The entire cast is committed to the characters they play and is apparently having the time of their lives. Speaking personally, the two actors who stand out the most are Daisy Ridley and Leslie Odor Jr. Without spoiling anything, the two of them have a few moments and lines of dialogue that I found to be the most clever and best delivered. Also, some of the more experienced cast grace the screen with colorful performances, especially one of my all-time favorites Michelle Pfeiffer. And, of course, where would an old-fashioned murder mystery be without the tremendous and powerful Dame Judy Dench commanding everyone's full attention without uttering a single word.

Rather you have read the book or not, have seen the original 1974 adaptation or not, or have any interest in seeing a good murder mystery on the big screen this year, this is the movie you owe it to yourself to see. It is the beginning of something more beautiful down the road that I hope to see more of in the future.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Yes.

Why?
It is one of the best-crafted films of the year and one that must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.