Justice League

Score:  C+

Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Henry Cavill, et. al.
Running time: 120 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  After a few "setup" films in the way of Marvel's Avengers universe, DC has its own mega hero bash now in Justice League.  Forced to severely alter its antecedents' darker tone after critical thrashings, the film ends up being a bit of a mess of elements, albeit an entertaining one.  Gadot's returning Wonder Woman and Miller's new Flash give it a lift, but the structure is all too familiar without providing anything distinctive of note to the genre (or even DC's own universe).  Pass on this in favor of Thor, unless you're a superhero junkie like me.


The death of Superman (Cavill) has brought fear and despair to a world that had just begun to embrace him as a protector of Earth.  This environment lures new evil to the world, while humanity's other heroes remain isolated.  Bruce Wayne (Affleck) investigates increasing sightings of winged aliens in Gotham, and begins to connect them to the broader societal turmoil.  Realizing that the city - and the world - faces a threat larger in scope than he alone can handle, he pleads with Diana Prince (Gadot) for help.  The two seek out others with the ability to join them, but struggle to form a united front among individuals used to standing on their own.  Time is short, however, as a powerful being known as Steppenwolf storms across the globe in attempting to revive an ancient doomsday device.

Justice League returns many of the characters/actors that have accumulated in the DC superhero universe recently, and introduces a few more.  Leading the way is Ben Affleck as Batman.  Although Affleck proved himself worthy of the cape and cowl in last year's Batman v Superman, the character is a bit swallowed up here both by the larger cast and the more fantastical tone; he seems kind of out of place.  Not helping matters is Affleck's own more generic performance, relying more on cliches and seeming on cruise control.  Gal Gadot, however, steps up to the plate in fully reinhabiting her Diana Prince-aka Wonder Woman-role.  The film also introduces an intriguing developmental arc for her, though it is unfortunately not fully realized.  Ezra Miller as the Flash is the most interesting and entertaining newcomer, filling a stereotypical nerdy, Spider-Man-y role, and the character is both refreshing and the source of most of the film's humor.  Jason Mamoa and Ray Risher's Aquaman and Cyborg, respectively, are both fine but also offer underexplained, bewildering back story (Cyborg) and generic muscle attached to the bad boy archetype (Aquaman).

Justice League is DC's film studio answer to Marvel's Avengers, and while it is entertaining and possessing of potential for the inevitable follow-ups, overall it is a far cry from its rival's finely polished craft.  DC's previous Batman v Superman was eviscerated by critics (unfairly, IMO-more on this later) for its stylish but dark, brooding tone.  Clearly, the studio got the message and so while it retains much of the visual style (via the same director, Zack Snyder), it tries to be a lot more "fun", mostly through humor and an Avengers-like team dynamic.  A good bit of the comedy does work as does the lighter touch (at least partly), but overall it comes off as an incomplete facelift, an attempt to radically shift gears that results in a fairly generic blockbuster feel as opposed to Marvel's distinctive and effective equivalent.  Not helping matters is a pretty familiar plot structure.  The team building is familiar, of course, but greatly accelerated; much time is spent on it, but because we still know so little about three of the new characters, the unifying process feels unearned and obligatory.  The villain is a pretty generic baddie who, as is often the case in weaker superhero films, seems practically unstoppable at the beginning but gets trounced at the end.  Speaking of the action, there is plenty of it, of course, and Snyder's direction makes most of it at least interesting.  But there is a lot of CGI - way too much, in the climactic battle - and there are no truly great sets.  Throwing a diverse group of heroes into one movie generates a strong pull to make it all generic, a pull that Justice League succumbs to often.

***

Justice League features some of the biggest superheroes in pop culture in one movie, yet, while it isn't a bad film, it ends up feeling relatively insignificant.  For me, it comes back to the tone created not just in one film, but in the whole series of films that the comic book juggernauts are producing.  Marvel hit on something special with Iron Man, and it built on this carefully and methodically until the first Avengers completed the task (while also setting the stage for countless more to come).  I felt DC had an intriguing new take on the superhero genre with Batman v Superman, with a much different yet also distinct tone, defined by its darker, stylish visual tone and mood.  It wasn't a perfect film, but strongly established a canvas (like Iron Man in Marvel) for a rich, wider universe*.  Yet critics basically destroyed it, and in doing so, gave us the muddled mess that is Justice League.  Perhaps the next few "solo" films will help to better define some of the new characters; already, Affleck's Batman has poor prospects while Gadot's Wonder Woman is soaring, so it's a toss-up.  If you're looking for a fun action film for the holidays, Thor: Ragnarok is a far superior option, but if you're a fan of the genre, this isn't a terrible choice, either.

* This summer's Wonder Woman was actually already a big contrast in style - much more optimistic and light, which works for her standalone character - but it would have been very intriguing to see a movie (read: Justice League) in which those contrasting styles are pitted against/with each other.  Alas...


By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53575621

Murder on the Orient Express

Score:  B

Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Starring Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, et. al.
Running time:  114 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Murder on the Orient Express is a bit of counter programming in the theater as we get to the blockbusters of holiday season.  Highlighted by a large cast of esteemed actors and a classic mystery tale, there is a good bit of fun to be had on this train ride.  However, the cast and details they bring along get to be a bit too much, and it never truly soars.  If you need a nice, simple outing at the theater this is a solid choice; otherwise, it can wait until Netflix, if you're interested.


Shortly after solving a case in Jerusalem, the famed detective Hercule Poirot (Branagh) heads home to London as yet another case beckons.  When he arrives in Istanbul, a friend offers him passage on the renowned Orient Express train.  Poirot meets and takes note of the train's varied passengers, including a shady American named Ratchett (Depp) who, having received threats, seeks his protection.  That night, there is commotion near Poirot and the train becomes stranded; the next morning Ratchett is found murdered in his cabin.  While waiting for help to arrive, Poirot leads an investigation into this fresh case, having a limited number of suspects yet also limited evidence.  As tension builds on the train with a murderer hiding among them, Poirot uncovers increasingly peculiar details about the suspects as he races to solve the case.

Murder on the Orient Express features quite a cast of stars packed tightly into the confined physical setting of the film.  Kenneth Branagh leads them all as the famous Hercule Poirot, a fun character that he plays well.  The opening of the film, which sees Poirot solving the Jerusalem case and traveling back home, gives Branagh plenty of room to introduce not only Poirot's impressive intellect but also his preference for solitude and biting dry humor.  As the main case proceeds on the train, Poirot also faces struggles of morality, but the film favors plot almost exclusively to his development; he is who he is.  All other characters are strictly supporting, although there are some standouts.  Depp is quite impressive as Ratchett, mysterious and menacing, particularly in his single meeting with Poirot.  Josh Gad plays his associate, a role much different from what you're used to seeing from him and one of the more interesting in the film.  Michelle Pfeiffer also gets a nice part and makes the most of it; it's hard to nail down just who she is as she shows gentle affection for Poirot one minute and sharp control of the train the next.  There are many more roles beyond these, but they are relegated to essentially a few moments (of varying quality) each.

Murder on the Orient Express is a pleasant, old-fashioned mystery film that is somewhat limited and fleeting, much like its train setting.  It benefits from good directing and writing, and while the plot outline - a mystery classic - by now is pretty familiar, it relies on its large and varied cast for flavor (to both better and worse effect).  Branagh, again, is fine as Poirot, and just getting to know him early on is interesting enough, but the film wisely transitions to the main setting and plot before long.  A nice feeling for leisure on the train is established, and it's clear that there's more to the characters than meets the eye (long before the murder), boosting our curiosity.  Once the main murder case gets underway, however, the process becomes surprisingly rote outside of a few interesting bits, particularly with Ratchett's associate (Gad).  It's not long before you realize that everyone has some kind of connection to the victim, and the film spends a lot of time on all those details which are frankly not that interesting after the third or fourth interview.  There are some twists along the way to throw you off track, although by the time they come, the story has become convoluted enough that it's not as effective as it could be.  I'll admit I did not predict the outcome before it was revealed, so that at least preserved some intrigue for me (others will no doubt be more clever than me).  At the end of the film I felt like I was getting off a train like Poirot:  it was an entertaining time, but the proceedings and its characters will likely be carried out of my mind before long.

***

While Murder on the Orient Express has only middling reviews from the critics (58% on Rotten Tomatoes) and my own review isn't super enthusiastic, it's best viewed as a welcome change of pace in today's film landscape.  As much as I do enjoy a lot of the current trends in film - such as the superhero boom - it's also refreshing to see more back-to-basics entries like this one.  I admit that I have neither read Agatha Christie nor seen any other film versions, so I have nothing to go on as far as the quality of this adaptation.  My score of a "B" definitely counts as "good" here; it's well made throughout but also fails to do anything particularly great.  Perhaps more time would have allowed for better development of a few key individual stories or conflicts, or more liberty could have been taken with the adaptation of the overall story.  At any rate, if you really want to see a solid traditional film in the theater, this is a good choice; otherwise, it wouldn't hurt to try it on Netflix some time.




By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54191771

Thor: Ragnarok

Score:  A

Directed by Taika Waititi
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett
Running time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Thor: Ragnarok is a load of fun, utterly overhauling one of Marvel's more "serious" Avengers.  Old frenemies Thor and Loki step up their game for this one, with a big assist from Hulk and a bevy of interesting new characters.  Perhaps the funniest Marvel film yet, it still retains the overall Marvel universe feel as well as its high level of quality.  Essential theater viewing for Marvel/superhero fans, and highly recommended for anyone else, too.


While continuing his search for the Infinity Stones - powerful artifacts that have begun appearing mysteriously in the Avengers' paths - Thor (Hemsworth) discovers that his father, Odin (Hopkins), is no longer ruling their homeworld of Asgard.  Thor returns and finds that his adopted brother, Loki (Hiddleston), has been disguising himself as Odin and ruling in his place.  Thor forces Loki to take him to their father, on Earth.  The aging man speaks to his sons for the last time, warning that his death will release their sister, Hela (Blanchett), a powerful force locked away and kept secret after betraying Odin long ago.  Hela confronts her brothers and easily overpowers them; when they try to flee back to Asgard, she sends them tumbling deep into space, and goes to Asgard herself to set her plans in motion.  Finding himself on a strange planet and at the bottom of the food chain, Thor must figure out how to free himself and return to Asgard in order to prevent a catastrophe.

Thor: Ragnarok benefits greatly from a talented cast, one with many familiar faces and almost all of whom get to show off impressive comedic chops.  Chris Hemsworth naturally leads the way as Thor, this being his character's third "solo" film.  Although there is a lot of noise around him, Hemsworth shows continued development, in particular his impressive comedic timing.  There is still a little bit of the imperious Norse god element, but it is much reduced; he is brought down to much more relatable earth by his various partnerships with others, vulnerable circumstances, and most of all the consistent use of good, self-effacing humor.  Still very much unique, Thor now feels much more like an Avenger than ever before (in a good way).  Fortunately, Tom Hiddleston's Loki gets a significant role again, and his character also makes a similarly dramatic shift to the comedic.  A frenemy from the start, this change also suits Loki quite well, as he's not a full-on "bad guy" (though he retains some significant scenes of sneakiness and treachery).  Mark Ruffalo's Hulk gets some interesting material to work with, and credit to the actor (and script) for his great chemistry with Hemsworth while not stealing the spotlight.  Cate Blanchett unsurprisingly does a superb job as the villain, easily conveying a sense of great power and menace but keeping it well within the bounds of this film's lighter tone.  There are plenty of other great parts: Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie is a great new heroine with a swagger to match her power, Jeff Goldblum is an expectedly (and hilariously) bizarre ruler of his equally strange planet, Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange makes a brief but fantastic appearance, and there's even a surprise A-list cameo.

Thor: Ragnarok on the surface is a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach to the superhero genre, but it somehow works tremendously as an action comedy that still manages to advance the Marvel universe's story, too.  While the first two Thor films were solid and entertaining, they were also a bit too sober for their own good (and thus out of place at Marvel).  Well, Ragnarok is certainly no tentative step in the other direction.  I'm not sure that two minutes go by without an overt attempt at humor here - a remarkable amount of which works, and I laughed out loud quite a bit.  There is all kinds of comedy, from slapstick to the more subtle, from self-referential (and self-effacing) to broad, all of it contributing to what is one of the most fun Marvel films yet - an impressive feat.  Yet Ragnarok also does not simply fall into parody, nor does it throw away the chance to advance a compelling story.  It takes advantage of its characters' great powers (several of them are literally gods) to "believably" create enjoyable but not rules-busting silliness (to Loki's frequent chagrin).  While the story structure is not new, it is a good fit for this world; the stakes are appropriately high (but not a burden) and provide Thor excellent challenges not only to his strength but to his character.  In a weaker film, I would have rolled my eyes at the climax, but here it is well-earned, fun, and ends in a truly unique and interesting way.  With all the good humor, interesting characters and new tone for the world, the signature Marvel action is practically an after thought (but still good, particularly the Thor-v-Hulk gladiator rumble).

***

I knew that Thor: Ragnarok was going to be a departure in some way from the previous films, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much different - and how well it was done.  We can surely thank Guardians of the Galaxy for opening the door for it, but Ragnarok manages to be even better (especially important due to the belly flop that was Guardians 2).  I've sung Marvel's praises before, but they keep delivering the goods to deserve some more.  The director, Waititi, is a largely unknown filmmaker who certainly has not done any big franchise work before, but he turned out to be a perfect choice here, bringing a sorely needed fresh perspective to Thor's world yet retaining the high quality of the Marvel universe and allowing it to fit in with its kin.  As with all Marvel films, it's most enjoyable if you've seen the others, but even for newcomers, this should be a tremendously entertaining time at the cinema.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53738935