Studio: Columbia Pictures Screenwriters: Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd
Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver
There’s no denying when a film’s following endures over the decades, someone did something right. When someone utters the term ‘movie magic,’ you can look to such a film as an example of what that means. Almost four decades after the release of the first film, Ghostbusters is such a movie.
A supernatural film caters to a particular group of movie-goers, which can make money, sure. What made Ghostbusters such a hit was the notion of the supernatural being blended with comedy. Yet not in an offbeat or cheesy manner. This melding of genres, first and foremost, as successful as it was, is because of excellent story crafting.
Official Trailer for ‘Ghostbusters’ Credit: Columbia Pictures via YouTube.com
I’m a proponent that every film project begins and ends with the story. How well a script is executed in cinema (or television) is the foundation to success. Yes, many other factors can ruin a project, but it starts with the story. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis birthed the idea of Ghostbusters to the page, and Ivan Reitman ran with it. It was a perfect melding of story and vision coming together.
Simply put, Ghostbusters is about a group of scientists that go into business for themselves who are the animal catchers of the supernatural. For a price. Some jobs are easy, some are more involved, but when the world’s fate is at stake (with New York City as the epicenter), who ya gonna call?
Part of the magic of this film is the technical jargon and gadgets used. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense or if scientifically, it’s easily debunked. The way those attributes are utilized makes it seem believable and seamless into the world they belong to. That’s not an easy thing to do, let alone want to watch in a more critical world of films today. That’s as adults. As a child sees it, who wouldn’t want a proton pack?
‘Ghostbusters’ image from Columbia Pictures via Denofgeek.com
The stunts, special effects, and cinematography are all other components that add to the movie magic within Ghostbusters. Creating the proton streams, Slimer, any of the spooks and specters, and a hundred plus tall marshmallow man add to the story and magic. Crafting the right camera shots and angles really help sell the tone of the film. From wide-angle shots of the city to the close-ups of characters’ reactions to the action, it all works together.
Ghostbusters is one of those films that is gifted with a memorable musical score, and as a bonus, it has a theme song. I play some of this film’s music on my front porch every Halloween with other music because it’s just so fitting.
For a movie that is close to four decades old, it’s still funny. Most films will show their age over time with the character’s lines/references, but Ghostbusters doesn’t really suffer from that. The worst that can be said is that it highlights the styles of 1980s America.
Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd in ‘Ghostbusters’ via Vanity Fair
The most significant component is cast chemistry. When the casting for each role is bang on, it’s fantastic. When the entire cast meshes well and feeds off of one another’s performances, the project is all the better for it. Winston (Hudson) and Egon’s (Ramis) presence and humor balance out Ray (Aykroyd) and Peter’s (Murray) more eccentric personality attributes. To that end, you have polar opposites in Dana (Weaver) and Janine’s (Potts) characters, but they still have a place that belongs in the film. Even though he’s the odd man out, Louis (Moranis) is this endearing, naive neighbor that gets caught up in the action and adds to the comedy.
Ghostbusters is a movie that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. It’s meant to be a fun sci-fi/comedy that you enjoy with popcorn that happens to be a well-constructed story with great acting. It absolutely is worth a place on your watchlist! Enjoy.
I take care not to put out spoilers that ruin a movie in my reviews/posts. To dance around them when reviewing franchise films, where one builds upon another. Though, strictly speaking, they’re not sequels. A Quiet Place 2 is very much a traditional sequel. To talk about it will mean referencing its predecessor a little. There may be baby-sized spoilers, but nothing major. Therefore, don’t read this until you’ve seen the first one.
Paramount Pictures final trailer for ‘A Quiet Place 2’ via YouTube.com
A Quiet Place 2 is not one of those sequels that’s a letdown. Sure, some of the mystery is gone now that audiences understand the alien’s trigger. That doesn’t equate to a lack of suspense and thrills. I couldn’t remember the last time I jumped in my seat seeing a movie, and for this one, it happened twice.
The film picks up right where the first left off. In a flashback/memory, the audience gets to experience the day the aliens came. Yes, it shows multiple perspectives and not just the person having the flashback; it’s forgivable. Move on. It’s effortlessly shown and seamlessly goes right back to the movie’s present. By adding this, viewers see the connections with other townspeople the Abbott family knew. This is nice because there is no need to explain who someone is later on. Case in point, Emmett (Murphy).
Emmett and Regan (Simmonds) are the genuine leads of the film. Evelyn (Blunt) and Marcus (Jupe) have sizable chunks, but someone has to keep an eye on baby Abbott. With the family farm in ruins, a safe and sound-proof space is crucial with a newborn in tow.
Noah Jupe, Emily Blunt, Millicent Simmonds in ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Image Credit: Paramout Pictures via Screenrant.com
Everyone’s acting is on point, to a level that questions how. How did Krasinski get such real-life-like emotional reactions? When Noah Jupe’s Marcus screams and panics (which is all he seems to do), did he have a coach? Or Emily Blunt’s resolve as Evelyn to carry around that crate and baby on an injured foot is pure grit. Grit is not a term I would use to describe Emily Blunt typically. The natural-seeming reactions of Millicent Simmonds’s Regan are also amazing to see depicted, as she is deaf in real life too. All of it adds to the believability and suspense as you watch these characters struggle to survive.
Let’s talk feet for a moment. Evelyn walks around barefoot as the Abbott’s have elected to do, with a wound and dirty bandage. Ow and yuck! On top of that, they must now walk beyond the soft sandy paths they established near home. I’m barefoot most of the time, so my feet are used to a certain degree of abuse. However, walking on and running through the places the characters do without issue isn’t believable. Maybe if they were as light-footed as the elf, Legolas, from Lord of the Ring.
Krasinski doesn’t expand on the aliens in any way, which will bug some viewers who expect answers and details. In this, A Quiet Place 2’s alien foe is like the concept of the zombies in AMC’s The Walking Dead. There is no ‘why,’ only how to survive around them. A bleak notion, to be sure!
Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Djimon Hounson, Millicent Simmonds in ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Imgae Credit: Paramount Pictures via Screenrant.com
A Quiet Place 2 isn’t short on action and suspense. The film may have more dialogue, but it still invokes the same need for audience participation with being silent. With excellent sound editing and solid performances by the cast, the story holds up well against its predecessor. Seeing the first film, and this one is like being enveloped into a great book. When it’s over, you still want more. That’s a sign of excellent storytelling.
If you are a fan of action, suspense, and drama with a fantastic cast and great story, A Quiet Place 2 should make it on to a high place on your watch list.
—a pen lady
6-25-21
*Currently, you can only see this film in theaters. If it’s safe for you to see and you can see it in theaters before its home release, see it on the big screen. Some films are always better viewed on a gigantic screen, in the dark, with a superior sound system. This is one of those films. Cheers!
I’ll need to postpone today’s post as well, and for the next week. This allows me time to get home and catch up so I get on schedule again and have a buffer built up again. I’m also still waiting for WP to fix the glitches that have been thwarting my efforts as well.
Due to some WP glitches and travel today’s post will be postponed. I’m bummed and hope you’re not too much. I’ll make it up to all you wonderful readers.
Studio: Disney Screenwriters: Dana Fox, Tony McNamara, Aline Brosh McKenna
Based on: Novel One Hundred and One Dalmatians by Dodie Smith
Cast: Emma Stone, Emma Thompson, Joel Fry, Paul Walter Hauser, Mark Strong
Once upon a time, there was a land where the first Walt-Disney movies were created. Where women fell in love at first sight or continually needed rescuing by a man. Where magic was mostly evil, and villains were bad, no reason why.
Eventually, after many, many, many years, the rulers of this land changed and remodeled the great castle of the land. This land came to be known simply as Disney. Women were no longer plot devices forced into marriages, kidnapped, poisoned, or cursed. A place where all magic isn’t evil and women are empowered. Classic stories are reimagined here, and so are the villains. Now, they, too, have backstories, depth.
Disney’s Cruella Official Trailer via YouTube
Disney’s latest reinvention is the villain from the 1961 cartoon movie One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Cruella DeVil. Initially, she was an animated, chain-smoking, anorexic, verbally abusive, fur-wearing, puppy stealing, murderous maniac. Yes, the original cartoon was a children’s movie. There was a live-action film of the same name in the mid-90s… absolutely worth avoiding.
So, how do you redeem such a vile creation? You split her traits into two people and go from there.
Cruella isn’t about chasing down dogs, far from it. Though a handful is in the film, that part of the original has been stripped away. This retelling is sassy, edgy, and a tad dark. It was made with more mature audiences in mind.
Emma Stone and Emma Thompson in Disney’s ‘Cruella’ Image Credit: Disney
Emma Stone plays the iconic, titular role of Cruella. The audience is introduced to her as a child, briefly. That peek into her past sets up her motivations and the overall tone of the film to come. Cruella is a nickname; her real name is Estella. Estella tries to stuff a part of herself (Cruella) away into a metaphorical box. It’s evident from the film’s title that it doesn’t work out. It’s why that doesn’t work that makes for a compelling journey into this character.
Cruella’s depiction by Stone is absolutely believable. Her natural ability to exude snark while acting a tad mad and delivering salty lines, all while seemingly enjoying herself, is bang on. It reflects the original in a way that isn’t based on all the previous character flaws. Stone’s Cruella laugh is even on point.
All Estella wants is to work in fashion, to design. With the help of her friends Horace (Hauser) and Jasper (Fry), she finds an in. She catches the attention of fashion legend, The Baroness (Thompson). Dreams do sometimes come true! Or, maybe not. Emma Thompson artfully depicts herself as the “it” lady of London. She makes Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) from The Devil Wears Prada look like a street performer. In fact, both Emma’s feed off one another so well in their shared scenes it’s difficult to determine who is better.
Paul Walter Hauser, Emma Stone, & Joel Fry in ‘Cruella’ Image Credit: Disney
The pace of the film is relatively good. Unfortunately, it gets bogged down about seventy-five percent of the way through, but it’s not for long before it picks up again.
This film establishes who Cruella is and why. From there, Disney sets up what she could become in a sequel or two. They could choose to keep her “brilliant, bad, and a little mad” (as a tagline goes), letting her embrace villainy. Or something else. Honestly, Emma Stone’s performance is too fabulous to go good. This Cruella doesn’t need to be on the same path as the animated one to wreak havoc. Nor should she. By remodeling this character, it ensures her original toxic demeanor and subliminal approval of killing animals for sport is never again seen as acceptable.
Cruella tells a story that’s not a remake and is better for it.
This film is absolutely worth putting on your watchlist and seeing in theaters.
Studio: Universal Pictures Screenwriter: Stephen Sommers
Cast: Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo, Oded Fehr, John Hannah, Patricia Velásquez
Movies often hold up a pair of their characters, in the most trying of circumstances, and get them to the point of asking, ‘Is our love worth dying for?’ Well, that setup applies to stories in general, but let’s stick with cinema here. In Stephen Sommers The Mummy, that is the introductory sequence. The actions of High Priest Imhotep(Vosloo) and his love, Anck Su Namun (Velásquez), set a solid foundation for the plot. Less than five minutes in, and you’re hooked.
Universal Pictures trailer for ‘The Mummy’ via YouTube channel The Trailer Guy
The Mummy has a strong plot and story about, well, a mummy who won’t stay dead and aims to bring his lost loves soul back from the underworld. To that end, there is action, mystery, light comedic touches, and suspense. It’s not a horror film, though kids 10-12 may find certain scenes momentarily graphic (it’s a movie about a mummy and not the bandaged groaning kind).
American Rick O’Connell (Fraser) is a French Legionnaire who is wrangled into taking Evelyn Carnahan (Weisz) and her brother Johnathan (Hannah) to a lost Egyptian city. A city guarded by the Medjai, decedents of the pharaoh’s guards, led by Ardeth Bay (Fehr). The trio has a map to this fabled city, and they’re not the only ones searching for it. Evelyn wants to prove herself to her fellow scholars; everyone else is in it for treasure.
This is the project that introduced me to Arnold Vosloo, Oded Fehr, and Rachel Weisz. Despite his small role in this film, Fehr displayed a believable presence and talent as Ardeth.
Arnold Vosloo as Imhotep/Mummy in Universal Pictures ‘The Mummy’ via Screenrant
Vosloo’s portrayal as Imhotep/The Mummy is fantastic! He has very few lines and none in English (there are subtitles), so his role is mostly hitting his mark. That is, being where he needs to be at the right time. Special effects took a giant leap forward in 1999 after this film came out. So props to Vosloo for pretending to be all that’s required of an actor that will later become a gooey mummy who unhinges his jaw in post-production.
The Mummy is the only film that I like with Brendan Fraser in it. His character isn’t a tomb raider or archeologist and yet comes off like a watered-down Indian Jones. Done poorly, it could have ruined the movie, yet it works. The same can be said for Weisz’s character, Evelyn.
Erick Avari, Oded Fehr, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah in Universal Pictures ‘The Mummy’ via Netflix
Evelyn is a bookworm. A librarian in a museum. She scurries off on an adventure with no experience and no team. Rachel Weisz is a wonderfully talented actress, and she takes this character and makes her likable. Weisz explains things to the novice characters, as an actual museum worker might. Therefore Evelyn’s lines in many places come off as natural instead of condescending. Weisz depicts her in a way that doesn’t have me groaning at the glaring, unbelievably of the whole situation.
As moviegoers, we expect movies to be logical enough that we can see it happening or working out. Perhaps, even so, we could picture ourselves as specific characters. The Mummy doesn’t have all the logical bits to fill in the gaps, but it’s okay. It’s a lasting example of what movies were designed to do, entertain and distract.
Kevin O’Connor in Universal Pictures ‘The Mummy’ via Looper
In the decades since its release, this movie still holds up as a good story with watchability. I viewed this film digitally on a 4K TV with HDR. WOW! Some scenes don’t upconvert as nicely as others, but I was really pleased with the viewing quality. I expected the whole thing to be grainy (noisy) and the fact that it’s not made rewatching this so much better than pre-Blu Ray.
The Mummy is a great film to see and worth a place on your watchlist. Don’t forget the popcorn!
Directed by: Steven Spielberg Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs. 26 mins
Studio: Dreamworks Pictures & 20th Century Fox Screenwriter:
Adapted: Short story “The Minority Report” by Philip K. Dick
Cast: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Neal McDonough, Max von Sydow
In the year 2054, there’s no murder in Washington D.C., and it’s been that way for six years with the use of Pre-Crime in Minority Report.
Pre-Crime is a division of the police that arrests people before they commit murders. How is that possible? With the use of ‘pre-cogs.’ The pre-cogs are three people that were given birth to by drug addicts and, as such, caused the babies to have a severe mental handicap. A doctor who sought to cure them of their afflictions caused an unintended anomaly to manifest in some—the ability to see future murders.
Dreamworks Pictures & 20th Century Fox ‘Minority Report’ Trailer via YouTube
Minority Report is an overly complicated story of a murder, the vehicle for the plot, but, to me, is secondary to the film’s themes. These themes ask things of the audience that are overlooked by most of the characters. What are the ethical and moral obligations of using technology in many avenues of life? Doesn’t it take away free will? How can due process be ignored? In America, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but what if we haven’t committed said crime yet? There is a line between thinking of doing something and actually following through. The story follows the philosophical logic that events are bound by causality. That past events/actions/choices are always the cause of future events.
Yes, the movie is a melding of action and ideas while solving a crime, but it has a huge plot hole that isn’t recognizable until the ending. I’m not talking about the gigantic question about how Pre-Crime can work long term when it’s based on three people. What happens when they die someday? That’s not even the plot hole; that’s just a huge, logical question.
‘Minority Report’ Image: Dreamworks Pictures & 20th Century Pictures
For 2002, the film utilizes the technology available to create visually impressive “future” tech vibes that twenty years later have worked their way into our lives. There are no spider drones, but we have drones. We don’t have manually powered cycling sonic guns or fly around in jet packs. Our streets don’t look that nice anywhere in America, but the self-driving cars are sleek and sexy. Eat your heart out, Tesla. I also had Westworld vibes!
Minority Report moves along well enough but drags at times. Specifically, when the main character, Chief of Pre-Crime, John Anderton (Cruise), sinks into his depressed, self-loathing, and self-destructive habits. Cruise is in charge in this role, and runs, jumps, climbs, and gets shot at repeatedly. That just described ninety percent of his career. It’s an a-typical performance and nothing spectacular from anything else he’s done. His ex-wife Lara’s addition, beyond old videos, is a crutch and isn’t needed if only to satisfy Spielberg’s sappy cliché ending.
Samantha Morton in ‘Minority Report’ Image: Dreamworks Pictures & 20th Century Fox via Wired.com
While Colin Farrell (Danny Witwer) and Neal McDonough (Fletcher) don’t have as much screen time, they do bring great energy when on screen. Witwer is out to find the flaw in the system because he’s against over-reaching on people’s rights. Fletcher is second in command and is tasked to bring in John when determined he will commit a murder.
Cruise may be the principal character, but it’s Agatha (Samantha Morton) who stole the show for me. Agatha is one of the three pre-cogs. All three live in a sterile room in a pool of specialized, nutrient liquid while constantly hooked up to provide a live, recordable feed from their minds of murders that haven’t happened yet. Sedated every moment of their lives, barely able to move or speak. A slave from the moment their minds opened up, unable to close again. At one point, she asks, “can you see?” and while Agatha is asking about something specific, it carries a double meaning for all of the themes presented throughout the movie. Her character is the most energetic and emotionally engaging in terms of performance.
Tom Cruise in ‘Minority Report’ Image: Dreamworks Pictures & 20th Century Fox via Wired.com
Minority Report is this oddly lit movie that highlights the depth some will go to circumvent the system. No matter how advanced we get, humans are still materialistic, dirty, emotional creatures of habit at our core. The movie is part crime-solving, part action, and mystery. If you like crime, action, or sci-fi films, Minority Report is worth a place on your watchlist, even if you need to rent it.
Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon,
Don Johnson, Toni Collette, LaKeith Stanfield, Kathrine Langford, Christopher Plummer
When the patriarch of an eccentric, privileged family’s death triggers an investigation, no one is above suspicion in Knives Out. The film aims to be an ode to classic whodunit stories.
Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) works with local police to investigate the death of crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). His estate is reminiscent of something from an Agatha Christie novel, with its distinctive and eclectic presence. Its grandeur can only be matched by the robust and self-centered family members.
‘Knives Out’ trailer from Lionsgate via YouTube
Whether it’s the interviews with suspects to the story moving along in general, there is enough information to establish each character. To flesh out what makes them tick, and perhaps what would give them motive, is this effortless display of character development. The group is dysfunctional, what family isn’t, and yet they all have presence. Each respective role is depicted well, and that’s what a viewer wants from an actor; to do a good job. To be believable. The cast is layered, funny at times, and portrays a level of family tension that absolutely rings true.
Ringing true is Rian Johnson’s ability to create such a script. Movies are not made like this typically; they just aren’t and that’s a travesty. I’d take a great story with a pinch of violence and a dash of language over the way the majority of films are made in America any day. Really, who needs wanton violence, skin, and language if the story is fantastic and well-acted?
Kathrine Langford, Toni Collette, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, Riki Lindhome & Jaden Martell in ‘Knives Out’ Image: Lionsgate
The details that went into ensuring the audience doesn’t figure out what really happened is pure genius. It was jarring to hear Daniel Craig with a Southern accent, and I personally hope to never hear again. Mr. Blanc needed an accent, or he would have come across as a hard investigating cop. Craig’s performance was reminiscent of Hercule Poirot at the end, with his break down of events and clues, with the accent, but Poirot is far superior.
At the mid-way point of the film, I was like, okay, I have all this information, and there’s an hour left in the movie. It felt like the pace needed to quicken to keep my interest, and I was not disappointed. From there, the story shifts gears, the viewer is equipped with all the details they think they need, yet the plot dives deeper still. The plot twists and creates new perspectives and questions that all weave together to strengthen the suspense of determining how Harlan died.
Ana de Armas in ‘Knives Out’ Image: Lionsgate
While this all-star cast gives good performances, Ana de Armas and Chris Evans really sell the later part of the story with Daniel Craig. It’s got laughs and begs you to try and solve it before the end.
Knives Out is a fantastic homage to classic whodunit stories for the modern age. With suspense, family drama, laughs, a compelling story that will leave you engaged from beginning to end, and an ending… Knives Out should unequivocally be on your watchlist! You won’t be disappointed carving out time in your schedule to see it.
Directed by: Michael Dougherty Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs 12 mins
Studio: Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures
Screenwriter: Michael Dougherty, Zach Shields
Cast: Kyle Chandler, Millie Bobby Brown, Charles Dance, Bradly Whitford, Vera Farmiga
Godzilla: King of the Monsters is the second film in the “monsterverse” trilogy. The first was Kong: Skull Island. Where Skull Island had a much better storyline, tone, and pace, it also, more or less, had a better logical explanation of the monsters. ‘King of the Monsters’ fails at this.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters is basically monster porn with the weakest plot and cringy lines. If you’re a big fan of monsters, then this film probably won’t put you off. Though keep in mind the trailer’s tone compared to the actual movie is misleading.
Warner Bros. Pictures Final Trailer for ‘Godzilla: King of the Monsters’
The human characters have a purpose but have no depth. They exist merely to justify the limp excuse for a plot that moves along with the smoothness of a newbie learning stick shift. A story that revolves around culling the infectious human race with monsters—one of which is an alien. Seriously? This film is convoluted enough without that add-on. The whole justification for monsters existing in the entire trilogy is tenable until this screenplay, which is an exercise on how to fail film school. It’s meant to set up the third film, Godzilla v Kong.
If I had watched these in order, I never would have watched the third film. Instead, I was under the impression I didn’t need to see this film, so I saw ‘Skull Island’ and then Godzilla v Kong. Viewing the third film, I was confused as hell, so if you can make it through this film, more power to you.
While watching Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I stopped three times. My brain simply didn’t want to process the fecking train wreck in progress. Forcing myself to finish this is a crime against my brain cells. I just can’t. I don’t care about it enough to know how it ends. That’s a sad admission for any movie-goer.
The first film is like the first act of a movie, the setup. The second film is the middle, where the plot thickens, and lots of other details are learned. Finally, the third movie is the climax, the action, or reveal, and conclusion. Keeping that in mind, that is what this “monsterverse” is set up to be. The filmmakers are playing a long game. Trying to reinvent and expand beyond every monster film before them.
‘Godzilla: King of the Monsters’ Image: Legendary Pictures
Kong: Skull Island is a good start; this film is the equivalent of X-Men the Last Stand. The bastard, hot-mess of a franchise everyone wants to forget about. Godzilla v Kong is like a constant show of rock em’ sock em.’ However, if you understand the setup, it’s acceptable as such. You know what you’re getting going in.
Some argue there should be fewer humans in these movies; I disagree. The monsters can’t communicate, so the audience will understand, they were not designed to be. Therefore you need the human component.
If you like monsters, action, a believable story, and brain cells, there are far better movies to watch. Pacific Rim is an excellent, more recent example to see. Not this! Anything but this travesty of plot and logic. Godzilla: King of the Monsters should never make it onto your watchlist. Read a spoiler about it online and skip to the third film if you want, but forget it was ever produced.
Another scene has Steppenwolf and parademons fighting against the hero’s in Gotham, fine. The audience should remember this film was shot after Wonder Woman yet pre-dates Wonder Woman 84 technically. So where did Diana/Wonder Woman get a sword again? Of all the things better explained in this version, this never comes up. Yet, in this entire movie, she has a sword that can stand up to the paces of a demigod’s use and battling against parademons and Steppenwolf. She’s never been back to the Themyscria. Am I the only one who’s curious about this? Is my nerd showing too much? Moving on, the transition could have been smoother from this sequence to the next scene, but Snyder seemed to have little options. So, like a hangnail, you do what you need to do and move on.
The mother boxes are supposed to be these super-powerful objects that are science but appear like magic that communicate with one another somehow. That’s easy enough to believe, and I am grateful Steppenwolf no longer talks to them, calling them “mother” like a disturbingly devoted child. However, it’s difficult to accept the boxes can “decide” to tell/show Steppenwolf something. Or how they just know what a user wants out of them, period. How that is possible is never established and seems like it’s there just so Snyder can throw in more material. Snyder vaguely sets up the second plot within the storyline at just over the film’s halfway point. The plot within a plot he attempts to foreshadow is aggravating and bloats the film.
Still of ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ via polygon.com Image Credit: Warner Bros Pictures/HBO Max
Snyder takes too long to develop the characters and establish the point of the movie. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman have already been established in previous films by this point, so why does it take so long to flesh out the other three? It shouldn’t. This obsessive need to put in every detail makes the movie’s pace, overall, slow and dull.
Eventually, the name Darkseid is uttered. Unfortunately, the writers of this film can’t come up with a better introduction to the whole point of plot 2 without Steppenwolf mansplaining to DeSaad about Darkseid. Yes, the audience gets told by default, which is the point, but it’s so far-reaching. The buildup to what happens with the boxes is established early in the film, and the audience is invested. To throw in everything after this is a lame attempt to cobble together what should be two films. Like the outcome of plot 1 could fuel plot 2 in another film. The pace would be better, at least.
Listening to what Steppenwolf says to DeSaad about Darkseid made me write it down. Why? The whole explanation is confusing, and I needed to break it down because I thought I heard it wrong. I didn’t. It is a bunch of illogical rubbish! Snyder does a shite job of setting up or explaining or alluding to any of what is said beforehand. If Snyder had bothered doing that, weaving these details or backstory into the film from the beginning, his plot within a plot wouldn’t seem like an afterthought. But, that takes talent, and that’s something I’ve felt the writers of the “Snyderverse” have always lacked.
Image Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures/HBO Max ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ via Screenrant.com
After the movie’s soggy midsection is Cyborg, again. His transformation from Victor to Cyborg is further explained and reveals how the mother boxes work. This is important because this makes the team seem less spur of the moment and crazy for wanting to use it in the crashed Kryptonian ship than they appeared in the 2017 version.
There is this touching representation of humanity between Martha and Lois when they share their mutual grief with one another about Clark/Kal-El. Or that’s what I thought, but then Snyder goes in and dangles another add-on. Just randomly throws in something else that doesn’t even come up again until the absolute end of the movie. I’m sure he did it to make this fanbase happy, but I say it’s a giant waste of potential! Ultimately it’s a letdown that he should have just left out of the movie.
PART 5
While the pet cemetery joke is gone in this version, Barry finds himself, with the others, digging up Clark’s body. What, you thought it magically got to the Kryptonian ship?
Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller in ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Image Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures/HBO via Entertainment Weekly
I still don’t agree with Arthur wearing Atlantian armor because he hates Atlantis. It makes zero sense. However, I’ve established what I think about Zack Snyder’s lack of professionalism towards the other directors involved with this ensemble.
The Kryptonian ship doesn’t like the mother box, big surprise. I do like the explanation for why the team can use it and how Victor’s father could use it on him without waking it. The devil is in the details, and this is an area where they were logically fleshed out.
In the 2017 Justice League, Lois is used as bait for a resurrected, powered alien with a temporary blank slate of a mind. How her character is utilized in this version is preferred. She takes these daily walks to the memorial near the ship (okay, this is a baby-sized spoiler), and it gives her a natural, believable reason to be there and “run into Clark.” It really highlights Clark and Lois’s bond and relationship as something real and substantial. Something the other version didn’t care about.
Amy Adams as Lois Lane in ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Image Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures via comicbookdebate.com
So, it’s in the trailers; Superman lives again! Yeah! In the process of making that happen, Victor is ‘shown/sees’ a possible future or alternate reality; by either the ship or mother box, which is unclear. It’s logical for Victor to see what Bruce has seen. However, accepting Batman’s “premonition” or “Knightmare” from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a stretch. It’s one of Snyder’s attempts at alluding to what’s to come, which only makes logical sense from Victor’s position, never Bruce’s. Yet, it’s from Bruces’ POV that is the springboard for more Snyder-bloatware.
Superman/Kal-El/Clark is not enjoying his resurrection party that makes its way outside the ship. Points I’d like to point out as dumb. 1. You’re a cop or soldier, and you see a flying man with Superman’s face; why shoot at him? Can’t you tell it’s him without the suit on? 2. Batman and Lois saying “Clark” within earshot of said cops and soldiers…just stupid.
PART 6
Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, Ezra Miller in ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Image Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures via radiotimes.com
Bruce tells Diana about his dream/premonition, not because it’s of any relevance to this movie or logical again in any way. If there was a snowball’s chance in hell of Snyder getting to do another film, this would be relevant, but it’s not gonna happen. He knew that and left it in any way. The film could be so much shorter without him trying to get the audience to believe Bruce has premonitions. Much of this movie could have been done without or in smaller doses, and the runtime would be tolerable.
At this point, there is an hour left in the film.
Evident from the trailers, Superman dons a black suit. Many people didn’t like this, and it’s hard to blame them. Nowhere in the film is a reason for the choice, though it would have taken ten seconds or less for Superman to respond to any of the team or Lois asking about it. Not that Henry Cavill looks worse in all black, it’s Henry Cavill. Still, the precedence for it is based on the comics. Only the most devout comic nerds would know that.
So near the end of the film, the team works together to deal with Steppenwolf and the mother boxes. Darkseid lurks nearby while all the action is happening, like some bigger foe the team didn’t see coming and must deal with. Snyder’s second plot. If you’re a fan of the comics and think that Snyder will give you an epic showdown with him, nope.
Henry Cavill as Superman in ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Image: Warner Bros. Pictures
Both of the trailers for this film are misleading cockteases. The tone of the film is not the same as the trailers, nor is the pace. Alluding that Darkseid has a substantial role in this film is false. His character is in the movie, but I feel it’s fair to warn you Alfred (Irons) gets better screen time.
There’s so much more I could talk about in this part of the movie, but it’s difficult to do without giving stuff away. So I won’t. Just understand that the film could have ended here, and it would be a runtime of 3 hours 34 minutes. At this length, all of the Lord of the Ring and Hobbit films had better storytelling, tone, pace, and character development than “the Snyder cut.”
EPILOGUE
With twenty-eight minutes left, ten of those are spent on short bits that the audience will appreciate. Tying up loose ends is an excellent way to describe it. While the movie could have ended already, it definitely needed to end here. It didn’t.
Henry Cavill as Superman in ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Image: Warner Bros. Pictures
All I could think of was what the fook, just end the movie already! So there are ten more minutes of Zack Snyder’s inability to let go and move on. What is shown has nothing to do with the actual movie. It’s like a movie trailer tacked on at the end. The super-secret clip shown only to the attendees at Comic-Con or something. It’s literally a scene he made to go into another movie. Catnip dangled out for all his fans to salivate, obsess over, and probably bully the studio for years to make. It’s pathetic.
Don’t worry. The last eight minutes are the credits and just the credits.
VERDICT
Zack Snyder and Chris Terrio should never have been given the reins of this franchise.
Yes, I’m a fan of Marvel comics and the MCU, but here is a fact, a person can be a fan of both Marvel and DC! Millions of people are. The two take incredibly different approaches to their storytelling. Understood. What Snyder did was make films based on an obscure and darker take on Superman and Batman. Those who are not devout comic book fans have a hard time accepting that take on these iconic characters’ first cinematic outing together. That’s fair; I even agree with it.
I could have been on board with the death of Superman storyline with a twist to it. If they merged that with another storyline where the characters come together. Cyborg and Aquaman wouldn’t be in that, but Hawkgirl and Martian Manhunter would be. A better writer and director could have made something truly epic and wonderful. Something to build upon. A franchise with continuity that supports the standalone films as well as the larger ensemble ones. Those are just attributes of good storytelling when you have so much material to work with as one does with comics and superheroes.
‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ promo image via cbr.com Image Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures ?
Zack Snyder was given another chance to tell a story. A story with a clear beginning, middle, and end. He failed at that. He chose to create a four-hour-long 4.3 aspect ratio example of why more isn’t always better.
If you never saw the 2017 Justice League spare your butt the nap it will get watching this. Unless you’re bedridden and bored out of your mind, it’s not worth the time. If you did see the other version of this film, there is little satisfaction to be found. Sure, there are many changes, but unless Cyborg is your favorite character, he’s the one with the most significant differences. Don’t bother.
I love the Justice League and the actors that portray the characters; they all did a fantastic job with the given material. No-fault can be found there. Still, this movie isn’t worth putting on your watchlist; no film that feels this long should be. The Justice League may one day be shown justice on the big screen, but not today.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68999013/mother_box_unity.0.jpg)
Watch List Reviews 