Justice League

In 2012, The Avengers arrived following 4 years of hype. In 2017, Justice League arrived following the same length of time. You'll never guess which turned out for the better.

The Partially Educated Review

It must be warm and re-assuring for a filmmaker when their franchise reaches its ultimate goal and fan anticipation falls somewhere between disdain and disinterest. Most of the DCEU (or whatever the hell they're calling it nowadays) has managed to make the Dark Knight trilogy look like Elf on the cheerful scale. So maybe the disinterest was justified, but the automatic assumptions that it would be rubbish bothered me slightly. With Wonder Woman coming earlier this year, it felt like they'd acknowledged the things that were putting fans off and were working hard to rectify these. For the most part, they were successful. Wonder Woman may not have strayed from the formula too much with its narrative, but it still provided a lot of fun within that. So, if that acknowledgement of fan feedback was there, surely they'd know to carry that over to Justice League?

While Justice League does attempt to bring about a lighter mood to proceedings than Batman V Superman, it seems pretty apparent that this is the result of unfortunate circumstances. Director Zack Snyder left the process following a real-life family tragedy, meaning that Joss Whedon (credited only as writer) picked up the reigns for apparently fairly extensive re-shoots. The problem here is that Snyder and Whedon both have their own distinct styles and the two simply don't gel. When the two styles combine, scenes become incredibly easy to tell apart based on who directed them, leaving the overall tone to become messier than a norovirus addled 2 year-old.

Character development is also found wanting. Where most of the Avengers got their own film to establish themselves prior to the big coming together, here 50% of our heroes got (at a maximum) 2 minutes of screen-time in BvS. In a film that needs to introduce so many different characters, the new additions just don't get the necessary time for us to develop much of an attachment. Ezra Miller's Flash becomes the one-liner guy and gets a little annoying at times. Ray Fisher's Cyborg is the serious straight-man, seemingly going for a Morpheus-style performance, but showing the personality of a broken radiator. Jason Momoa's Aquaman fares a little better, as they're willing to let the character show some different facets, but it's still not quite enough to get you properly pumped for his upcoming solo film. Momoa is fairly solid in the role though which, if you've seen Conan The Barbarian, will be deeply refreshing to hear.

The real let-down though is chief baddie Steppenwolf. This should be one of the best villains going and also one of the most devastating. He does feel threatening, but he ain't half generic. He arrives, he kicks ass, he promises to destroy everything, he leaves. Nothing he says feels overly different to any other villain you've seen and when looking to find an impact that will last over the franchise, you'll come up wanting. With an actor as good as Ciaran Hinds in the role, that becomes the film's biggest waste. As for his quest to find the Cubes of Cubery, or whatever it is they're calling those things... it all seems a little familiar.

We're not in complete dud territory with Justice League. Gal Gadot still makes for a fantastic Wonder Woman and (tonal problems aside) Whedon's touches do make for more than a handful of humorous moments. They're not enough to overshadow the problems though and it's all outweighed by a disappointing sense of failing to learn from past mistakes. Even things that previously worked no longer do. Ben Affleck, for example, seems bored in the role, as if he's still not got over the fact that more people wanted to talk about Batman than Live By Night. It's your own bloody fault for making a boring film, mate!

In the long run, it seems that Justice League will be remembered in a similar vein to its box office figures. There have been bigger disasters, but it still stings a fair bit.

FOUR out of 10

P.S. I know I didn't mention Henry Cavill's Superman, but after three films of blandness, it's becoming difficult to give a shit.

The Unsungs #2: Bone Tomahawk

In life, there are injustices. From the Hollywood blacklist to that time my sister deliberately waited until my own birthday to give birth to my nephew (and I'm supposed to be grateful that I get to share it with him!), sometimes things come along and laugh in your face. The same fate can be thrown at a film, as many great pieces of entertainment arrive and leave with all the impact of North Korean peace talks. Well, allow me to redress the balance and celebrate those films which deserve more attention than they've had.

The Unsungs #2

We're closing in on 15 years since the Saw franchise began, bringing with it an era of horror that basically said “Here's some gross stuff. Shove logical storytelling up your arse.” It was a bleak period for horror fans as we were left with very little other than cheap shock tactics and a heap of the red stuff. It wasn't just about the absence of true fear. There was so little to get invested in. It was all just a bit too...

So the idea of a horror western which once again explores all the disgusting things that can be done to the human body didn't exactly decorate me in anticipation. Throw in the fact that director S. Craig Zahler's past lies in making the sort of music that makes grandmothers weep and there was a whiff of the Rob Zombies about the place. I love Rob Zombie. I've seen him live many times. His films can do one.

Anyway, feel free to shoot me down for casting the sort of generalised assumptions that could turn me into the aftermath of Boris Johnson getting jiggy with an Oompa-Loompa...

(I found that after I wrote the joke)

...for I was very much in the wrong to assume that all purveyors of loud noise would make for bad filmmakers. This film is an absolute belter, provided you can stomach it.

The key to the film's success is that it very much prioritises its story and characters, working the grotty bits around it. Kurt Russell, Richard Jenkins, Matthew Fox and Patrick Wilson serve as the four men taking a joyful little romp into inadvisable territory. Their mission: rescue some of the locals from the hillside cannibals that plan to make them the centrepiece of their wholesome Sunday dinner.

All four of the leads have their distinct personalities, clear reasons for taking on the delightful task at their feet and motivations towards each other. This couples itself with dialogue that's razor-sharp with both wit and drama to create a four-way dynamic that's worth the price of admission alone (or the time it takes for you godless bastards to torrent it).

Whether you'll accept the violence depends on your own tolerance for that sort of thing. If you're a gore-hound, prepare to have your bloodlust satisfied. The film has a slightly canny way to it, opening with some pretty grim violence, but ensuring that it saves the best (worst?) for last meaning you'll always have something nastier to get through. It's not just the sights, but the pinpoint sound that makes for some truly disgusting scenes. If you're of a squeamish nature...

But as far as I'm concerned, sometimes cinema needs to be nasty. It needs to ruffle some feathers and offer those of a slightly depraved mind some respite from an industry that increasingly fears the 18 certificate. Bone Tomahawk is a nasty little film. And I love it for it.

NINE out of 10

The Mummy

It's taken me 2 weeks to write a review that I feel is publishable, mostly because I felt more like writing about the pizza I had afterwards. That is both an insult to the film and a complement to the pizza.

The Partially Educated Review

In 50 Words or Less: In a year that has already given us xXx 3 and Power Rangers, it is this that will most likely go down as the year's most generic action film.

---

Truth be told, I don't actually have much of a problem with Tom Cruise. Outside of the stain on cinema that is Top Gun (I'll deal with that another day), I can't think of any of his films that I harbour all that much of a dislike towards and when he's on form he produces bangers like Jerry Maguire and the Mission: Impossible franchise. I don't want to get stuck in a religion themed conversation with the guy, but I'm quite happy to sit down and watch one of his films.

The Mummy, though... It's a real misfire.

First off, this whole Dark Universe thing that Universal are trying to make into their juggernaut. It's obviously not going to work, particularly looking at the returns this film's (not) making. It was more than a little bit arrogant of them to start touting this as the franchise starter, as there was very little to suggest that this would have legs. Though Tom Cruise hasn't fallen from grace quite like, say, Johnny Depp (also set to become involved in the franchise; some solid business strategy there), he has fallen victim to the overall fall in box office returns and it's reached the point where his films have actively started to make a loss. Throw in the fact that The Mummy franchise hardly went out on a high-note last time around and you've got to assume that some mightily glowing reviews would have been needed to give this one a chance.

In qualitative terms, The Mummy isn't quite the disaster that some are declaring it to be. There's nothing to take it above average though. The action sequences are as close as it gets to actually giving us something of interest, but it does throw out its still lacking apex (Cruise once again doing something stupid in a plane) way too early, meaning the ones that follow feel like a whole load of nothing. Outside of those sequences is where the flaws really start to crawl out. The dialogue is particularly teeth grinding, showing about as much imagination as a Disney live-action division creative meeting.

It's not helped by actors who are known for being elevated by good material, rather than their ability to do that elevation themselves. Yes, that is partly aimed at Cruise, but Annabelle Wallis (chief sidekick) is considerably lacking in much of a presence, while Sofia Boutella's sarcophagus dweller mostly just moans like her death came about on the verge of climax and she's stuck in a continuous loop. Then we have Russell Crowe...

Now, I've said some nasty things about Russell Crowe's recent acting and they're not going to get any better here but, for the sake of balance, do go and read my review of The Nice Guys in which I was incredibly positive about him. When he's on form, I like him, but sweet merciful crap he's bad in this film. At points, he's bringing back the Man Of Steel gravitas which is always welcome.

However, the fact that he's playing Henry Jekyll would suggest there's going to be a little something extra to the character. There is, but we'd have all been better off if it had stayed contained. If you like defending Crowe against criticism over his frequent issues with ascribing to the less is more mentality, you might want to pretend this didn't happen. It's like he graduated from the Guy Ritchie School of Geezers with a 1^st Class PHD in Dick Van Dyke. Yes, it's even worse than this.

So The Mummy is definitely a misfire. To say that the most fun it gave me was with its frequent use of camel spiders as I sat next to a true arachnophobe is testament to how forgettable it is. As well as proof of my own enjoyment in the mild suffering of others.

FOUR out of 10

Pearl Harbor

May 21^st, 2001

On this day, Enron announced that it would no longer supply power to India. Rumour has it that many of their customers asked them to get on with it as Pearl Harbor was premiering in America that day and they wanted to avoid it reaching them.

The Partially Educated Review

There's a director's commentary somewhere (I think it's for The Rock) where Michael Bay talks of his admiration for James Cameron. He needn't have bothered telling us; Pearl Harbor makes it pretty obvious. The parallels between this and Titanic are so clear that it may as well be an official sequel with both being exceedingly long and dedicating less time to the titular event than they do to the love story at the centre of the narrative. Also, I'm sure it's a coincidence that Titanic “boasted” Celine Dion singing My Heart Will Go On and Pearl Harbor “boasted” Faith Hill singing There You'll Be; a song that was actually offered to Dion first.

Where they differ is that Titanic isn't quite as bad as some people would have you believe. Pearl Harbor is.

It's the timeless tale of two fighter pilots and one woman facing the great inconvenience of having their insipid love triangle interrupted by nearly 2500 people with the sheer gall to die and take away some of the attention. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett turn on the mope (and little else), while Kate Beckinsale looks beautiful. Let's face it, that's all a woman's expected to do in a Michael Bay film, but she does it very well.

That part of the story is where a lot of the criticism is thrown at Pearl Harbor and it's wholly deserved, but my main gripe lies elsewhere. The film is not without its moments that attempt to display the futility of war (sometimes successfully), but they are completely dogged down by a staunch good guys vs bad guys mentality. Now, I'm not about to start debating the heroism and bravery of the people who fought in conflicts such as this. We all know how well it goes down when a privileged millennial starts saying stuff like that.

However, when you present to me scenes of soldiers taking delight in the prospect of inflicting death on other people, I'm going to get a little irked. Not that I'm saying it may not have happened (it quite possibly did), but when I see the line “we're bombing Tokyo” be greeted with cheers and excitement, it can't just be me who thinks that's a little perverse. The best war films are those in which characters deal with the conflict between the horror of what they're doing and their sense of duty. This film has them pretty much revel in what they're going to do and it makes the characters so easy to dislike. I don't want to make this look like I'm saying Michael Bay thinks war is a good thing...

…as there's enough in Pearl Harbor to make it clear that isn't the case. However, those moments feel hollower than a brain donor's skull when they're coupled with scenes that completely contradict that. Likewise, the flashy spectacle and daredevil antics isn't particularly welcome either. Hartnett and Affleck's characters are incredibly guilty of this, as they move from one flashy manoeuvrer to the next, once again perpetuating the notion that this was a war won by two men and a couple of planes.

Pearl Harbor is a classic misfire. It's a tailor-made piece of Oscar bait that was so transparent it will forever dog Michael Bay's career. Even if the guy suddenly came into his own and made a truly magnificent piece of work, I genuinely feel like his past transgressions would dog him too much for it to receive any true accolades. Only one month to go till Transformers 5 though. You never know, the guy may surprise us.

THREE out of 10

The Unsungs #1: The Nice Guys

In life, there are injustices. From billionaire tax returns to that time my sister pushed me off the sofa and convinced my Mum I was lying, sometimes circumstances come along and kick you somewhere uncomfortable. The same can be said for film, as many great pieces of entertainment don't get the praise they deserve and fade away, perhaps dreaming of one day being called “cult”, but somehow forgetting that gives it the same status as The Room. Well, allow me to redress the balance and celebrate those films which deserve more attention than they've had.

The Unsungs #1

For Those Who Like it Short: Providing some much-needed variety to the careers of both Gosling and Crowe, The Nice Guys is further proof of writer-director Shane Black's comedic genius. It's also yet another of his films which went undeservedly unrecognised.

For Those Capable of Reading: My tolerance of both Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling has waned in recent years. Crowe's ego had given way to a number of performances that seem to be all about the gravitas and that led to him singing and... just... why?

You see, it did get worse than Les Mis.

As for Gosling, the man has trademarked the sort of laid-back charm that manifests itself as a drawling voice and a perennial look of abject boredom, as if his soul has found itself somewhere other than where his face is. I believe he considered it intense, but judge for yourself.

So let's give it up for Shane Black then. He's not entirely innocent of cinematic fumbles (*coughTrevorSlattery*cough*), but he's also a writer who could inject decent humour into pretty much anything. Two private investigators looking into the death (or not death) or an “experimental” film actress should be a walk in the park for him then. And it so is. If only I could sum up the happiness that this film gave me in one video.

The film has a one-two punch on it's hands, as Black's hilarious script lines up with some seriously good chemistry between Crowe and Gosling. Both are at their absolute peak here, with Gosling pulling out a flat out bonkers performance that steals the limelight from anyone he shares the screen with. Even Crowe to a degree, but he still takes the often unforgiving task of playing the straight man and deadpans his way into the sort of territory previously reserved for Tommy Lee Jones.

But, wait. The film also has a child star.

Angourie Rice makes her Hollywood debut as Gosling's daughter and, thank God, she's actually really bloody good. It's the typical “who's more mature?” dynamic between herself and Gosling, but it works on so many levels. There's no twee with Rice and not one single attempt to ramp up the cuteness. At only 13 years old (at the time of filming), she brings more to a character than 80% of 20-something's do with their own. That's partly because they actually ensure there's more to her character than just 'Female, Young', but also because she brings so much personality to proceedings.

That's what this film thrives on. It's stars, it's script and it's near perfecting of the art of comedic timing. I am yet to meet a single person who has seen and disliked this film, though I'm sure that someone, somewhere existing in a pit of their own self-loathing, will feel the need to pipe up eventually.

So why then did no one go to see it? It likely lost out through being released the same weekend as Neighbo[u]rs 2; apparently another Seth Rogen film was the preferable choice.

Everyone else likely just went to see Civil War again. Or The Angry Birds Movie, but I live in hope that they weren't adults. The Nice Guys is better than all of those films. So f**k you, general public!

NINE out of 10

xXx: Return of Xander Cage

Never did I think that a dumber film than Dude, Where’s My Car? would exist in my lifetime. And then…

The Partially Educated Review

In 50 Words or Less: With about as much grace and beauty as my naked, hairy buttocks (PICTURE THEM!), xXx returns and clings on to a past that has long since died, almost becoming endearing as a result. It nonetheless remains complete tosh.

In Detail: When Revolution Studios decided to release their first film in a decade, I wonder which part of them thought that the world wanted another xXx film. The first one was bloody awful, but successful in dollar terms. The second one was, I think, worse (though that does involve debating the worth of two films that are technically meritless) and boasted box office returns so low that director Lee Tamahori’s next venture was to get arrested while dressed as a woman. True story.

Who am I to judge the decision though? There very well could be a chance that xXx has been bought back with a relevance and vigour of monumental proportions. Right?

xXx 3 (as it shall be known) is a film that desperately wants to be cool, but believes that it exists within a world where the Tony Hawk games are still popular. In the film’s own words, the return of Xander Cage is apparently cooler than the Guns N Roses reunion at Coachella. Reality dictates that it’s more on the level of an Atomic Kitten reunion at a Scunthorpe Bingo Hall.

The plot involves possession of a device that is capable of crashing satellites; one of which was responsible for the death of xXx’s previous mentor Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson definitively defining the term “cashing the cheque”). Now under the guidance of a perennially bored looking Toni Collette, xXx and his team of fellow adrenaline junkies are tasked with bringing the device back into the right hands. In other words, it’s the same plot as 90% of the other action films out there.

This is cinema for the Ritalin-addled, with a loud booming soundtrack, copious amounts of special effects (only some of which are decent) and a crippling fear of leaving a camera angle unchanged for more than half a second. This is a film directed by D.J. Caruso whose past film experience suggests that he really should be able to shoot action by now, but I’ll be buggered if he’s managed it here. Many of the action scenes have that unintelligible style of shooting (see also: the Taken films), where any details of the ongoing fight are entirely indeterminable. Instead, we’re forced to accept that the shaking cameras mean that punches are being thrown or bullets are being fired. Why not, I dunno, let us see who’s punching who?

Now, I originally thought there’s probably not much point talking about the performances here. There’s a reason Vin Diesel’s casting as a chunk of wood in Guardians Of The Galaxy was so inspired and the likes of Donnie Yen and Tony Jaa are there for the sole purpose of impressively kicking the shit out of things. There is one person, however, that really can’t get away with this. Nina Dobrev. I’ve looked and I’ve seen her in precisely nothing else, so, for all I know, she might be fantastic elsewhere. She also may be a very nice person. These things I accept. What I do not accept is any hint of an argument that anyone should be allowed to be this annoying in a film ever again. She’s the geeky joker who's supposed to be the backbone of the film’s humour, but I don’t know that a sidekick character has ever made me feel quite so irked.

The reality is that xXx 3 is technically a god-awful film. I imagine anyone would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. However, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t occasionally amused by the outright brainlessness of it all. I’d be downright kidding myself if I pretended the ridiculous acrobatics of Donnie Yen didn’t make me grin a little bit. Pretending like this is a film worth your time would be to completely insult each and every one of you.

So on that basis, this is a film worth your time.

FOUR out of 10

Heat

About a year and a half ago (probably, I can’t be arsed to check), I announced that I would be working towards making Seven Pounds my first Full Education. I then proceeded to post very few reviews in the time that followed and also made absolutely no visible effort to get to that Full Education. That ends now. Here I am, ready to properly look at getting to that Full Education. Reviews will be coming. I may group them together again. I may not. Who knows? Will Seven Pounds be my first Full Education still? Probably not. Truth be told, I don’t know for definite what will be and this is basically just my way of saying that I’m doing the blog again, but it might be…

The Partially Educated Review

I frigging love this film. In fact, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t. I’m sure there’s someone out there who doesn’t like it, but they’re probably the sort of person who enjoys the sound of a dog being strangled.

Heat is possibly…

…the most overlooked film in the history of awards season. Released in the prime month of December and greeted by a hell of a lot of critical praise, Heat would also go on to commercial success, before being completely ignored by every single major provider of golden accolade.

You can’t even make the argument that the other nominated films were better when the film sweeping up that year was Braveheart. And that’s even true when coming from me: someone who quite likes Braveheart.

Heat is a cops and robbers film. Truth be told, that is it when it comes to plot and it’s all that you need. This isn’t a film that’s pumping out a surprising narrative with shocks and twists; it’s all about it’s moments. Robbery scenes and a shoot-out that sets the pulses somewhere between raised and exploding heart. Or director Michael Mann’s amazing of shooting the ugly side of LA and the uglier people that inhabit it. The real moments though lie in the meetings between two of cinema’s all-time greats. It’s to be expected that the cop and the robber don’t spend much time on screen together and that’s true here. In this case though, the cop is Pacino and the robber is De Niro, making those moments they do spend together a sort of film fan nirvana. No need to dwell and riddle them with too much hyperbole. Just watch them.

Even apart though, you can’t escape the one who’s off screen. While nowadays the presence of these two legends is a far cry from any stamps of guaranteed quality, back in 1995 they had the sort of magnetism and power of presence that could light up a mine shaft. A really, really deep one. Whether they’re on or off screen, both actors dominate the entire 3 hours. I mean, OK, maybe Pacino’s overcooking it a bit, but who cares when it leads to this?

Find me any cop based film made that was made in the post-Heat world. I guarantee you that every single one of those films owes a stylistic debt to Heat. It’s that influential. Perhaps you are someone who thinks that it’s not as good as that. Genuinely (GENUINELY!) I would love to know why because as far as I’m concerned, there’s a whole genre that’s spent two decades living in the shadow of this beast.

TEN out of 10