Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Oof
I had a horrible horrible feeling that Justice League was going to be rubbish. After the double whammy of raw sewage that was BvS and Suicide Squad, my hopes for a third ensemble film weren't high at all.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020 (Updated Feb 12, 2020)
Birds of Prey is a mixed bag, but there's just about enough good there to make it an enjoyable time.
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way đ)
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way đ)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The extent of my knowledge of Wonder Woman comes from vague memories of the TV show with Lynda Carter in the 70s and the Super Friends cartoon in the early 80s. So I knew she was an Amazon princess from Paradise Island who flew an invisible plane. I may have been Wonder Woman for Halloween back when you stuck your arms through a plastic sheet with Wonder Womanâs torso painted on it, that tied at the neck like a cheap, hospital gown, with a mask with eyes cutout and a mouth you really couldnât breathe through. So really, I knew OF her, but I never really actually knew much about Wonder Woman.
Fast forward some 40 years later and Iâm in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! Sheâs raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiopeâs training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.
Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.
Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naĂŻve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isnât immune to Dianaâs beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.
I wasnât sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Womanâs physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Womanâs theme music.
Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really canât say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me âmehâ for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Womanâs director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.
Fast forward some 40 years later and Iâm in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! Sheâs raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiopeâs training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.
Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.
Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naĂŻve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isnât immune to Dianaâs beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.
I wasnât sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Womanâs physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Womanâs theme music.
Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really canât say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me âmehâ for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Womanâs director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Pleasantly Surprised with a Great Lead Performance by Moss
I really had no desire to check out the Blumhouse re-imaging of the classic Universal horror classic THE INVISIBLE MAN, but I was hearing positive comments on it - especially about the lead performance - so I figured I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The trailer for this offered a glimpse at something that looked intriguing but the final result wasn't quite as impactful as you might have imagined.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander SkarsgĂĽrd plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander SkarsgĂĽrd from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander SkarsgĂĽrd plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander SkarsgĂĽrd from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Decent cast performances (1 more)
Good fun
Varying quality of SFX (1 more)
Painfully safe
Justice At Last For DC Fans?
Last weekend, a movie dropped that most comic book fans have been hotly anticipating for the last few decades. The follow up to the disappointment that was Dawn of Justice, Justice League had a lot to live up to. Iâm not going to try and convince you that it is a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it. If I was judging the movie on itâs own I would probably be much harsher with my rating etc, but in the context of other DCEU movies, itâs a breath of fresh air.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isnât really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as heâs been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoaâs Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think thatâs more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but itâs nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I donât hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but itâs not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, itâs not the worst movie in the world; itâs not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, âokay,â itâs the Justice League for Christssake. This film isnât even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avengerâs solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isnât really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as heâs been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoaâs Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think thatâs more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but itâs nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I donât hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but itâs not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, itâs not the worst movie in the world; itâs not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, âokay,â itâs the Justice League for Christssake. This film isnât even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avengerâs solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
DC gets it right
Iâm not going to sit here and tell you that Wonder Woman is alright because itâs been directed by a woman, or that itâs the most progressive superhero film of the last decade. No, neither of those things are true.
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe â though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isnât saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict thatâs raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, letâs get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, itâs a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. Itâs almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but heâs in the film far too much â not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anayaâs portrayal of âDr Poisonâ aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the filmâs climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, itâs 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Manâs Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003âs Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and weâre thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst itâs true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, sheâs let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot â sheâs much, much better than the film she is in, and thatâs a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie⌠you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe â though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isnât saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict thatâs raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, letâs get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, itâs a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. Itâs almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but heâs in the film far too much â not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anayaâs portrayal of âDr Poisonâ aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the filmâs climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, itâs 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Manâs Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003âs Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and weâre thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst itâs true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, sheâs let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot â sheâs much, much better than the film she is in, and thatâs a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie⌠you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyderâs sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, itâs a miracle weâve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. Whatâs even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish â unfortunately thatâs probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Supermanâs (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes â Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) â it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This yearâs Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between â itâs not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but itâs also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, itâs a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Baleâs turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by CiarĂĄn Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isnât a spoiler if youâve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. Itâs also painfully obvious where Snyderâs very âoperaticâ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedonâs trademark wit and this doesnât sit well all of the time. Itâs clear that a turbulent production has created a film thatâs biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and thatâs a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment canât mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, itâs a miracle weâve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. Whatâs even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish â unfortunately thatâs probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Supermanâs (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes â Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) â it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This yearâs Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between â itâs not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but itâs also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, itâs a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Baleâs turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by CiarĂĄn Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isnât a spoiler if youâve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. Itâs also painfully obvious where Snyderâs very âoperaticâ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedonâs trademark wit and this doesnât sit well all of the time. Itâs clear that a turbulent production has created a film thatâs biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and thatâs a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment canât mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) Oct 11, 2019