Hallelujah: "Zack Snyder's Justice League"

Spoilers Below

Zack Snyder's Justice League is a vindication for an often misunderstood and unfairly demonized filmmaker. It's also a reaffirmation that superhero films can be genuine artistic expressions. After viewing the film I'm not sure about what Warner Bros. was in such a panic they felt the need to bring in Joss Whedon to reshoot so much of it. If they wanted the lighter-toned, more optimistic superhero film, Snyder gave it to them. Man of Steel had a rough around the edges Superman make some mistakes on his way to saving the world and Batman v. Superman was a deconstructionist take on the superhero mythos; but ZSJL is the most traditionally superheroic film in the trilogy. I would argue it has the perfect tone- serious but not as heavy as MoS or BvS, with just the right amount of levity without feeling like a MCU film. And even without the behind the scenes turmoil ZSJL would still stand as a very good- even great- superhero epic.

Right from the first scene it's clear this version is a more fluid continuation of BvS  than Whedon's version as we witness Superman's  Henry Cavill) death at the hands of Doomsday from that film's climax. But just that film's beginning had us see MoS's climax from Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) perspective, here Snyder shows us Superman's death screams awakening the three Mother Boxes, which the being Darkseid (Ray Porter) once used in an attempt to conquer Earth thousands of years ago before he defeated by an union between Man, Olympian Gods, Atlanteans, Amazons and Green Lanterns. After the battle the Mother Boxes were separated and hidden. 

BvS and ZSJL's openings emphasize how Snyder's films are about Superman's presence- and absence in the world. BvS had an angry and distrustful Bruce who viewed Superman as a threat to humanity. Here, Bruce understands Superman's death leaves Earth vulnerable to attack- largely in part to his conversation with Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Bruce and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot)  have to recruit other metahumans- Barry Allen/The Flash (Ezra Miller), Victor Stone/Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and Arthur Curry/Aquaman (Jason Momoa) to combat Darkseid's emissary Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), who is looking for the Mother Boxes.

ZSJL doesn't have the same complex plotting of BvS but it's not as streamlined as the theatrical cut.four hours there's more breathing room for the characters to be fleshed out, especially Barry and Victor, the latter cited by Snyder as being the heart of the film. I loved Barry's introduction when he save Iris West (Kiersey Clemons) from a disastrous car wreck using his speed powers. Scored to Rose Betts' version of Tim Buckley's Song to the Siren, Snyder reminds us how romantic a superheroic feat can be. Without  exchanging words I'm already looking forward Iris and Barry's relationship in Andy Muschietti's Flash movie. 

Victor is the film's most identifiable character since he's the League member who views his powers as a curse, the position many people in reality would take if they were half human, half robot. Victor resents his father Dr. Silas Stone (Joe Morton) for making him this way after he was nearly killed in a car accident that claimed his mother Elinore Stone (Karen Bryson). Silas used one of the Mother Boxes to save Victor and this bit of plotting efficiently makes the Stone family the central part of the story.

Victor is reborn as Cyborg and birth/death/rebirth is a major motif through Snyder's trilogy. MoS begins with Superman's birth and Krypton's death. General Zod's (Michael Shannon) motivation is create a new Krypton on Earth. BvS ends with Superman's death and Bruce's rebirth as a more hopeful man. Clark Kent is reborn as the traditional Superman. He died sacrificing himself for humanity, proving to humanity how much he cares for them. When he returns- again, using a Mother Box- it's significant the first thing he sees is the memorial dedicated to him. And when he's fighting the League due to memory loss, it's Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who brings him to his senses, the person for whom he died. She, along with his mother Martha Kent (Diane Lane) represent humanity's best to Superman.

Snyder is known for his bombastity but Snyder is capable of incredibly intimate moments, some of the best in the genre. The scenes on the Kent farm in ZSJL are nostalgic and  warm, homaging Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie while still working on its own merits. It's about a family coming together, a man with the most important women in his life, finding peace even when the world may come to an end. 

Family is another big theme in this film; as I've already pointed out the Stones are central to the story and Superman has Martha and Lois. Bruce becomes part of a family again after the death of  his adopted son Robin. Diana has her mother and sisters on Themyscira and Arthur has unresolved issues with his Atlantean mother and human father. Barry 's father Henry Allen (Billy Crudup) is falsely imprisoned for the murder of Barry's mother (comic fans know what the backstory behind that is). And speaking of mother, the McGuffins are called Mother Boxes. Moreover, Steppenwolf is Darkseid's uncle who wants to get back in his favor after betraying him. 

I've talked quite a bit about the character stuff here so now I just want to say that Snyder creates the most visually bold and beautiful comic book movies. Snyder shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio, which gives the film wholly different feel than any other superhero film. Snyder has talked about his decision to shoot the film in this manner and how it was supposed to be seen in IMAX: Why Zack Snyder’s Justice League is in a 4:3 Aspect Ratio | Den of Geek

The film's cinematographer Fabian Wagner and Snyder create some truly right-off-the-page comic book images, which brings me to the "Knightmare" timeline, first glimpsed in BvS, where Darkseid has won and Superman is under his control. The Knightmare scene at the film's end is so comicbooky and I love it for that. The fact we have Arthur's queen Mera (Amber Heard) and the Joker (Jared Leto) is kind of incredible. And the dialogue between Batman and Joker feels ripped from an actual comic book.

There's more I'll probably write about ZSJL but for now I do really hope the "Snyderverse'' is restored. There's so much potential for this universe going forward. Snyder no doubt has a vision and embraces the craziness of the comic book universe. And if we're going to keep making comic book and superhero films we directors and writing to push the genre forward to avoid stagnation. So, what did you think of ZSJL? Comment below and let me know.

"Men are still good:" An essay on "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman"

Warning: Spoilers for both films will follow


I don't think it's too hyperbolic to say that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice are arguably the most controversial and divisive superhero films ever made. They've received both intense hate and love, which isn't surprising. From tone to characterisation, these are not the films many people want. For many, these films are too dark, too violent ("Batman and Superman shouldn't kill"), and don't have enough levity. For me, MoS and BvS are two of the boldest examples of modern blockbuster film-making- significantly flawed but still potent and filled with numerous moments of visual and emotional beauty. This essay will focus on MoS and BvS' thematic concerns rather than attempt to outright review the films. 

On an important side-note, with the newly released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice- Ultimate Edition on Blu-ray, (which contains 30 more minutes of footage), we're able to see Zack Snyder's original vision for his much maligned film. The Ultimate Edition is fuller and more cohesive. It also feels like the three hour epic as which it was originally conceived.The film's reputation has gained some much needed positivity due to the Ultimate Edition, which I think is helpful as we move closer to next year's Justice League. 

Beginning with MoS, the film shares structural similarities to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (David S. Goyer wrote both films, Nolan shares a story credit and is a producer on MoS). Like Batman Begins, MoS has a fractured narrative. As the ship carrying baby Kal (Superman's Kryptonian name) is about to crash on earth, we cut to adult Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) working as a fisherman. It's an elegant way to start at the beginning  of the Superman story (Krypton's destruction) while not wasting time getting to Clark as an adult. We then witness, via flashback, Clark's childhood, where he learns about and struggles with his super-human powers. In the present an adult Clark finally discovers where he came from and of his real purpose on Earth.

By employing a flashback structure, MoS distances and diversifies itself from Richard Donner's original classic with Christopher Reeve, which told its story linearly. And by positioning the scenes of Clark's childhood and young adulthood as flashbacks, it makes the experience of the film more intimate; Clark reflects on the moments of his life that defined him, which inform the moments in the present. The scenes of MoS where Clark is discovering where he came from- are its strongest. They feel less like a traditional superhero film than an independent film about someone who has super powers. When General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his fellow Kryptonians come to earth, the film becomes an alien invasion sci-fi film that happens to have Superman in it.

Both MoS and BvS also approach the concept and character of Superman from a very specific angle, which is, how would people react if Superman actually existed in our world. Some would worship him as a saviour, some would fear him or even hate him, and some wouldn't know how to feel. The film-makers approached MoS as a first-contact story- our first encounter with alien life. By being a story about Earth's first encounter with alien life, MoS isn't just a story about Superman, it's a story about the whole being at the precipice of a new chapter in history. The attempted terra-forming and subsequent battle of Metropolis are ground-zero for everything going forward in the DCEU (DC Extended Universe). We are shown a modern and realistic world that witnesses the birth of a modern mythology. The events of the film will be spoken about for generations to come. The arrival of Superman has irrevocably changed the course of world history.

At the end of MoS, Superman is forced to kill  Zod the most controversial moment in either film. I don't want to get in to whether Superman should or shouldn't kill. In the context of the film I feel killing Zod is a sacrifice Superman has to make for humanity. He has to kill the last of his race so that the Earth can survive. This makes him the last living Kryptonian on the planet. By showing he is able to sacrifice Krypton for Earth he becomes the representation of Krypton to Earth- the bridge between Krypton and Earth of which his birth father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) spoke.

Moving on to BvS, in that film's news montage, Vikram Gandhi (playing himself) person says the arrival of Superman is a "paradigm shift," and that we can't presume to make Superman abide by our rules- it just won't work. While we Gandhi states people have to start to thinking beyond politics. But as Andrew Sullivan (also playing himself) says, whatever Superman does can be construed as a political act. Sullivan's statement appears to me to be a comment on the image of Superman as an all-American hero. In the modern era, Superman has to represent everyone and care about the state of the whole world- but again, as grand a figure as he is, he can't really escape the political implications and ramifications of his actions. "Must there be a Superman?" Charlie Rose asks Senator June Finch (Holly Hunter). Her blunt answer: "There is." Superman is here, regardless of whether people want him or not; he is part of their existence. This one line conveys how it would feel to know- and have to accept- someone like Superman existing in our world. 

And maybe people do need a Superman. All super-heroes inspire us to be better and Superman represents this idea of inspiration better than all the others. While some may find Superman outdated, I think he remains relevant in our current time. There is so much hatred and cynicism that poisons the world. that what Superman stands for is still important: Hope. The hope that we can be better as a people if led the way, if we come together instead of continuing to push each other away.

One criticism of both MoS and BvS is they don't have the optimistic and light-hearted tone that we'd expect from a Superman film. And that's true- but despite being quite serious dark in many places, I believe there is an optimistic undercurrent to both films. In MoS, Superman gaining Colonel Nathan Hardy's (Christopher Meloni) trust and respect when he saves Hardy from Kryptonian Faora (Antje Traue) during the fight in Smallville shows Hardy's- and mankind in general- ability to look beyond his prejudice and see Superman as a hero and ally rather than just an alien. And during the film's climax, Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) stay with Jenny (Rebecca Buller) as Metropolis is crumbling around them, displaying the compassion that even the most hardened man is capable of showing.   

Most importantly, by the end of BvS Superman has restored Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) faith in humankind. In the film's closing scenes Bruce tells Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), "Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to." Bruce has spent most of the film hating and wanting to kill Superman- but in a bitter-sweet irony, Superman's sacrifice and death in the fight against Doomsday has shown Bruce a person's ability to be selfless and good. Superman still struggles with being a symbol of hope throughout BvS. People still question his motivations- politically and morally- throughout the film. Through his death at the film's end, I feel he becomes that symbol. His death rises him above politics and fear, and his absence allows humanity to reflect on his time on Earth and how they'll move forward. Superman's sacrifice ties both he and Bruce's arcs nicely together. 

Speaking of Bruce Wayne, I think along with Batman Begins, BvS features the best exploration of Bruce/Batman in live-action. The film begins with the funeral of Bruce's parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne- which bookends with Superman's funeral at the end. Just as MoS began with the cries of baby Kal El- the first natural birth on Krypton in centuries- BvS begins with the "birth" of Batman. In a dream sequence where he's at his parents' funeral Bruce falls down a hole and is swarmed by bats who- in one of the film's most striking images- bring him back up to the surface- to a "beautiful lie," as Bruce tells us in voice-over.

We then witness the Battle of Metropolis from Bruce's perspective. This first scene with the older Bruce establishes his motivations for wanting to destroy Superman. He blames Superman the destruction of Metropolis and the loss of the people in of his buildings. He comforts a girl who lost her mother in the destruction. Part of what drives Bruce in his mission as Batman is the need to prevent his tragedy happening to another child. The orphaned girl further fuels Bruce's rage.

He also fears what would happen if Superman decides to turn against mankind. This is highlighted by the "Knightmare" sequence in which Bruce sees a possible future where Superman is a tyrant (reminiscent of the Injustice video game and the subsequent comic book series it inspired). This sequence is a miniature movie in itself. It both reflects and reinforces Bruce's fears of Superman's unlimited capabilities. 

Just before the fight between Batman and Superman, Bruce tells Alfred (Jeremy Irons) that killing Superman will be his legacy. Bruce feels that criminals are like weeds but eliminating Superman will secure the survival of the world. This is an point-of-view from the character I don't think has ever been explored in the comics- Bruce thinking about a legacy outside his war on crime. Maybe it wouldn't work in the comics medium but in a film it makes sense. This Bruce has aged in real time- 20 years in Gotham as the Batman. This exchange between Bruce and Alfred also conveys that Bruce has been driven over the edge by Superman's presence in the world, on top everything else he's experienced through his. He's willing to fight a super-human being so he can secure a legacy beyond that of beating up criminals, one that's befitting of the Wayne name- "They were hunters," Bruce says of his ancestors.

Bruce also mentions he's older than his father ever was. Like other superheroes that followed them, Superman and Batman's beginnings are based in the loss of parents. MoS is very much a film about fathers, as Superman has two- his aforementioned Kryptonian father Jor and his adopted father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner). Jonathan is protective of his son, knowing he's meant for something greater but afraid what will happen when he reveals himself to the world.

If MoS was largely about fathers, then BvS is about mothers. The "Martha" scene has been the subject of much ridicule. People read the scene as Batman becoming Superman's ally just because their mothers share the same name. But I think it goes deeper than that. Batman realizes he's been manipulated by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). He also finally sees Superman as someone with genuine humanity- he has a mother who he's trying to save. Batman has an epiphany, which brings him back from the edge.

Now, about Lex Luthor. I feel BvS' Lex is one of the more unusual villains in recent comic-book movie history. Eisenberg's interpretation is the most eccentric Lex we've seen on screen thus far. His motivations have nothing to do with taking over the world or real estate. All the intricate plot mechanics- which were muddled in the theatrical version of BvS- are in service of Lex's anger from a childhood trauma that never healed. Lex tells Superman that no God saved him when his father physically abused him. To Lex, Superman represents the God who was never there when he needed him. Lex directs all his hatred toward Superman and wishes to prove that the perfect God figure isn't perfect- when pushed, he'll kill someone to save his mother. Though, ironically, Lex's plan is self-destructive, since kidnapping Martha Kent (Diane Lane) is what brings Batman over to Superman's side.

Despite its title, BvS isn't really about Batman and Superman fighting. Yes, it's pivotal sequence in the film and the plot threads of the film lead to it- but BvS is more about bringing these heroes together. What's more satisfying than seeing these two titans duke it out onscreen is seeing them reconcile- to witness Batman seeing Superman for who he really is. "I failed him in life. I will not fail him," says Bruce at the end. This line solidifies Bruce's arc in the film; and it says a great deal about how our relationship with someone can drastically change. Bruce began hating Superman but now he'll make certain his sacrifice isn't in vain. Superman's death is the basis for gathering the Justice League, a team that will honour his memory. And when Superman returns, he will lead this team. I don't find the tease of Superman's return in the film's closing shot cheap. The film slows down in it's final scenes, allowing the audience to feel weight of his loss and how it affects the world.

I think what has made Batman and Superman such inspiring figures for readers throughout the years is that they are characters who have suffer tragedies but use those tragedies as the foundation to do good in the world. Superman will never be able to return to Krypton but he can save Earth from Krypton's fate. Batman fights criminals so another child doesn't have to lose his/her parents. They may go about things differently but Batman and Superman can find common ground, which itself is a hopeful sentiment. If Batman and Superman can get along, maybe we all can.

Some Thoughts on "The Man From U.N.C.L.E."

Note: To anyone who reads this blog regularly- and many thanks if you do- I apologize for not writing recently. I wish I could say it was due to family troubles or poor health- but it really comes down to procrastination. But now it's time to get back in the swing of writing about what I love- movies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While many lament the amount of the superhero/comic book movies coming out, 2015 is less another  year of the superhero than it is the year of the spy film. So far this year we've gotten several films that have their own take on the genre- the stylized ultra-violence of Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman: The Secret Service, the subversiveness of Paul Feig's Spy and the old fashioned craftsmanship of Christopher McQuarrie's Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation. This fall we're getting the 24th James Bond adventure with Sam Mendes' Spectre, which may be the most serious-minded of this year's espionage offerings. And for those who want a more classic Bond film, Guy Ritchie's The Man From U.N.C.L.E. fits the retro 1960s bill.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.- based on the series of the same name which ran from 1964 to 1968 and spawned both a one-season spinoff (The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.) and a 1983 TV movie (Return of the Man From U.N.C.L.E.)-is the latest film adaptations of a 1960s spy show (Get Smart, I Spy, The Avengers, and of course Mission: Impossible have all gotten the big screen treatment, with only Mission going on to become a film franchise). It came out in 1964 just around the time the third Bond film, Goldfinger was about to be released. I feel the '60s is what defined our cultural image of the spy franchise, particulalry since the US and Russia was right in the middle of the Cold War.

And the Cold War is when the film's story takes place, in 1963- the year before the series debuted, and the film operates as a quasi-prequel to the series. For me, I think it a was wise decision to not to update the story to modern day; there's something more appealing and fun about setting in this time period then 2015, especially in when most spy films are modernized.

We're introduced to Napoleon Solo (current Superman Henry Cavill), a C.I.A agent who's in East Berlin to extract Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the daughter of a scientist (Christian Berkel) who may have been a Nazi during WWII. They are tailed by a KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) but escape. However, Solo and Kuryakin have to work together when it's revealed Gabby's uncle Rudi (Sylvester Groth) is connected to a shipping company owned by Alexander and Victoria Vinciguerra (Luca Calvanni and Elizabeth Debicki). The Vinciguerras plan to use Gabby's father to build a nuclear bomb.

What I like most about the film is it's low-key tone. While it does have the requisite action set-pieces, there's no Marvel-movie third act climax or huge Mission: Impossible-style stunts. The film allows the characters to interact and despite Ritchie flashy visual style, the film is uncommonly laid back. Unlike the two Sherlock Holmes films, where the Ritche-isms often felt forced, his sensibilities feel more attuned to this type of material. And instead of the greasy/grimy aesthetic of those films, cinematographer John Mathieson provides The Man From U.N.C.L.E. with the same sleek and warm look he gave to Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class- another film that was set in the 60s and riffed on classic Bond films.

Cavill's smooth Americaness and Hammer's rugged Russian-ness are a good match. One thing I picked up on about both these men is they both have dark backstories but while Solo has smoothed the edges off, becoming the perfect tool for the C.I.A, Kuryakin wears his roughness like a coat and is quick to lose his temper. There is one scene when Kuraykin has to allow himself to be robbed to keep his cover as an architect but he assaults the robbers instead. Kuraykin then tells Solo, "A Russian architect would have fought them, a Russia agent would have killed them."

Vikander (who was very good earlier this year in Alex Garland's sci-fi tale, Ex Machina), gets a slightly more interesting part then to be expected from a male-centric spy film. There's one scene (which you may have seen in the film's trailer) where Gabby does a dance behind Kuraykin in her pyjamas. This leads to them dancing and her slapping him; and then ending with her wrestling him Kurayakin to the ground despite her being tinier then him. This sequence has this wonderful blend of adorability and sexiness that's the most authentic scene in the film- and a real star moment for Vikander.

The other female role in the film- Victoria- is a little thinly sketch but I do like the idea of a female being the lead villain instead of being subservient to a man; and Debicki is clearly relishing playing the kind of femme fatale that wouldn't be out of place in a Connery-era Bond film. And rounding out the cast is Hugh Grant, who plays Alexander Waverly,  one of the section chiefs in U.N.C.L.E. (the role originated by Leo G. Carroll in the original series). Grant is on the sidelines for most of the film but becomes a bigger player in the third act, when his and Gabby's roles in the story become clearer. Grant is fun in his brief role and appears to be entering the character-actor stage of his career.

One major difficulty in reviewing a movie like The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is- like the previously mentioned Kingsman- by the time the movie was over, I wanted to see the next chapter. This is both a positive thing- since I liked the characters enough to see where they go from here- but it's also a indicator of a problem in modern blockbuster filmmaking- the need to set-up a franchise right off the bat. The Man From U.N.C.L.E. isn't at all as bad an offender as The Amazing Spider-Man films in this regard but it does feel a little like a big budget T.V. pilot- establishing characters but saving deeper exploration for later. This works for T.V. but I wished we had learned more about the characters this time around.

However, despite my reservations about the set-up-esque nature of the film, I think the film is genuinely likeable film and it's own low-key charms and game cast make it a worthwhile tribute to what I would say is the golden age of the spy genre.