REVIEW: “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” (2021)

March 15, 2021 by Keith Garlington

The roller coaster story behind “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” is probably more legendary than anything the filmmaker could ever put on screen. From the troubled production of 2017’s “Justice League” to the enormous social media hashtag movement that brought Zack Snyder’s full vision to life, the history of this new four-hour epic is as fascinating as it is unheard of. News of the #SnyderCut (as it affectionately became known as) immediately stoked the excitement of legions of DCEU fans who were stung by Joss Whedon’s 2017 mess. It was also met with its share of scoffers made up mostly of soured critics, Marvel die-hards, and others who were overly anxious to write it off from the start.

To get a better understanding of the Snyder Cut‘s significance you need to know its backstory. Zack Snyder was given the keys to DC’s version of the MCU and his universe was to be anchored by the Justice League. His story arc began with “Man of Steel” followed by “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and was to wrap up with a “Justice League” trilogy. But as shooting completed for his first “Justice League” film Snyder was forced to leave the project following a devastating family tragedy. Instead of waiting for Snyder to return, an already unhappy Warner Bros. brought in Joss Whedon to oversee post-production. Whedon made major changes to the script, dramatically lightened the tone, oversaw numerous reshoots, and whittled the running time down to two hours. Cinematographer Fabian Wagner would later say only 10% of what he and Snyder shot made Whedon’s theatrical cut.

Image Courtesy of Warner Bros.

While Whedon’s “Justice League” was certainly lighter and goofier, it was also mediocre at best and considered a box-office bomb, falling $60 million short of what it needed to break even. It led to Warner Bros. abandoning Snyder’s vision and reworking their DCEU strategy. In a nutshell Zack Snyder’s “Justice League” trilogy was over before he had an opportunity to make the first movie. But then rumors of a full director’s cut began swirling around on social media. Snyder confirmed its existence and soon the call for the Snyder Cut to be released picked up steam. Even members of the cast and crew (including Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck) joined the chorus. In an unprecedented move Warner Bros. gave Snyder and his cut the green light, pitching in $70 million for added scenes, editing, and visual effects enhancements. Enter “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” now set for its big release on HBO Max.

It should be said that even without its troubled production, it was going to be an uphill climb for this “Justice League”. Many people had revolted against Snyder’s daring vision. It clashed with everything we had been programmed to expect from superhero movies. Even more, it looked at two iconic characters from pop culture at specific times in their lives that have rarely been explored. Snyder’s Batman is older, worn down from over two decades of fighting crime. The “beautiful lie” that brought Batman out of the depths is also the weight pulling Bruce Wayne further and further down. He now teeters on the precipice. Alfred knows it and now the citizens of Gotham fear this more violent Batman as much as the criminals. Bruce has lost faith in humanity and he’s reached a point where yes, we see him kill. Snyder knows the longstanding ‘rules’. So what happened to Batman? What brought him to this place? Can he find redemption?

At the same time Snyder’s Superman was just beginning his journey on earth. Both “Man of Steel” and its direct sequel “Batman v Superman” dealt with Clark finding his place in a world not ready to face his existence. With Clark’s arrival came a new era of the meta-humans and it brought him face-to-face with the uglier sides of humanity – our penchant for hating what we don’t understand; our sheep-like tendency to follow the wrong voices. In many ways Snyder’s Lex Luthor embodies that very misguided and destructive nature. It’s the world Clark’s cynical but wise father was shielding him from. So of course Superman would be conflicted and unsure of himself.

Image Courtesy of Warner Bros.

These darker layers of humanity are still missed by many of Snyder’s most vocal detractors yet they are integral to his more probing vision. This is a major reason why Whedon’s romp clashed so profoundly. But with “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” that essential narrative and tonal continuity is restored. This is the follow-up “Batman v Superman” deserved – an audacious effort that not only builds on the story its two predecessors was telling, but that opens up those films in several thrilling ways that I don’t dare spoil.

One of the biggest and best changes comes with the characters themselves. This “Justice League” feels like a meaningful continuation of some journeys and an exciting introduction to others. These aren’t the walking punchlines from Whedon’s “Avengers” knock-off. The cringe-inducing silliness has essentially been wiped away (kinda like Whedon’s name in the credits). In Snyder’s cut, he and screenwriter Chris Terrio take their characters seriously, often looking beyond their superpowers to their personal struggles, imperfections, and insecurities. These are ingredients sorely missing from the 2017 film. And while mankind has a crucial presence, this film’s chief focus remains on the heroes burdened with saving it.

But this is still a movie based on arguably the most iconic superheroes in comic book history and Snyder does them and the genre justice. For all of the humanity infused into his characters, there is just as much out-of-this-world, super-powered awe. “ZSJL” is like a graphic novel brought to life with dazzling action sequences and digital effects that are consistently mind-blowing. The astonishing CGI helps visualize some truly magnificent worlds. It also creates these grand and sometimes edgy cinematic set pieces that are some of the best you’ll see in a superhero movie. Staying with the technical stuff, it takes no time getting used to the much talked about 1.33:1 aspect ratio. I was skeptical going in but after seeing the beautiful full images without the tops and bottoms chopped, I was quickly won over.

Image Courtesy of Warner Bros.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about “ZSJL” (besides its very existence) is how well it flows from start to finish. And how for four hours there is never a lull or any downtime. That’s because Snyder and Terrio pay attention to every character both intimately and in battle. None of our time with them feels wasted. Ray Fisher’s Cyborg is the biggest beneficiary. Not only is it a great performance from Fisher, but this portrait of the tortured Cyborg is so much more complete. Same with Ezra Miller’s Flash who is now naturally awkward and funny rather than an annoying stooge. Both Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Aquaman (Jason Momoa) get several scenes that better link them to their solo films. And as expected Ben Affleck as Batman and Henry Cavill as Superman remain terrific fits. And unlike before, this time we get a villain that we understand. Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) was egregiously shortchanged in the 2017 film. Here he’s menacing, motivated, and is a precursor to a far greater evil. Then weave in a rich, stellar supporting cast full of familiar faces and a few fascinating new ones as well.

“Zack Snyder’s Justice League” is a new movie in practically every way. You see it in the intimate character development, the flow of the story, the jaw-dropping digital artistry. It’s also refreshing. I like the MCU. I’ve seen all of the films multiple times each. But after 23 movies, nuances and all, you grow accustomed to the tone, the structure, etc. Thankfully Zack Snyder went for something different rather than copy a tried-and-true formula. But his “Justice League” is more than simply a movie full of ambition. It’s a truly great blockbuster, one that surpasses the earlier theater release in every conceivable way. Would we have ever gotten this four-hour sprawling superhero epic in 2017? Doubtful. Will this film change the minds of those determined to dislike Zack Snyder’s take on the DC universe? Also doubtful. But personally speaking, I’m thrilled this movie exists and yes, I can enthusiastically say “I want more”. “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” premieres March 18th on HBO Max.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Stan & Ollie”

March 12, 2021 by Keith Garlington

In the States it seems like “Stan & Ollie” came and went with barely a peep. Yes John C. Reilly earned a Golden Globe nomination and the film received a warm reception from critics, but otherwise it’s a film that got no real attention. I don’t remember it hitting any theater around me and the promotion for the movie seemed nonexistent. It’s unfortunate because “Stan & Ollie” is a solid biopic minus most of the usual trappings.

I’ve have an enormous affection for Laurel & Hardy going back to my childhood. PBS was instrumental in introducing me to and developing my love for the classic comics from the silent era (Lloyd, Keaton, Chaplin) as well as Hal Roach’s biggest acts, Our Gang and of course Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. To this day I adore all of these great comedians, but there was and is something special about Laurel and Hardy. I’ve seen most of their ‘talkie’ shorts and can quote many of them. I’ve watched their feature films like “Way out West”, “Sons of the Desert”, and “The Flying Deuces” countless times. So natural “Stan & Ollie” had an immediate appeal.

Photo: Sony Pictures

The film comes from director Jon S. Baird and screenwriter Jeff Pope. But the biggest draws are the two stars and their stunning likenesses to their characters (Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy). Everything rings true – their distinct voices, comic mannerisms, even individual details from Oliver’s signature toothbrush mustache to Stanley’s wry smile. Most importantly, neither Coogan or Reilly are simply relying on impersonations. Their performances dig into both the personal and performance sides of Stan and Oliver.

The bulk of the film is set in 1953 during the comedy duo’s final appearances as an act. The two embark on an arduous stage tour across England and Ireland while struggling to find funding for their next movie. The tour starts in rinky-dink theaters with small crowds thanks to shoddy promotion from their British producer Bernard Delfront (Rufus Jones). But after adding more public appearances to their already intense schedule, they begin grabbing bigger crowds and booking larger venues.

The boys are joined by their wives in London where the duo is booked for a two-week engagement at the Lyceum Theatre. But soon old wounds from the the past begin festering, specifically about their brief split several years earlier (seen in a prologue). Pent-up bitterness and resentment threaten to not only end a beloved comedy team but a longstanding friendship as well.

Photo: Sony Pictures

The film is driven by its warm and endearing central relationship. There is a tender, organic chemistry between Coogan and Reilly that fits well with Stan and Ollie’s easy-going camaraderie. An unexpected spark comes with the appearance of their wives, Oliver’s anxious and concerned Lucille (Shirley Henderson) and Stan’s Russian-born fireball Ida (Nina Arianda). Both add a bit of zest at a time when the movie really needs it.

But I can’t overstate just how terrific the stage performance scenes are. With an almost eerie similitude, the film captures some of Laurel and Hardy’s greatest bits. Take the stage recreation of their classic short “County Hospital”. From the pinpoint line readings to the smallest gesture, you swear you’re seeing the real thing.

I’m not sure if any movie biopic has captured its subject(s) as authentically as “Stan & Ollie”. Fans of the pair will find the similarities uncanny. But what makes the movie is their ability to go beyond appearances and mix physical authenticity with genuine humanity. Best of all it captures what fans like myself love about Laurel and Hardy while giving us a behind the scenes glance at their enduring friendship.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

5 Phenomenal Action Movie Tough Girls

March 11, 2021 by Keith Garlington

It seems like it has been forever and a day since I last did a Phenomenal 5. But with Sundance and awards season (mostly) in the bag what better time than now? There are countless action movies that feature tough guys. In fact, in the 80’s and 90’s an entire action genre centered around muscle-bound beefcakes. But we do a disservice if we fail to recognize that there have been some tough-as-nails women who can hold their own with ANY of the fellas. So why not give these women their due by listing five of the coolest and toughest? To no surprise there were several tough girls to choose from so I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But there’s no denying that these 5 Movie Tough Girls are most surely phenomenal.

#5 – Furiosa (“Mad Max: Fury Road”)

There were so many glorious surprises in George Miller’s nitrous-injected thrillride “Mad Max: Fury Road”. Near the top of that list was Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa. Tom Hardy’s Max is a key character and he’s who the movie is named after. But in many ways Furiosa is the lead and this is her story. And when the two pair up in one particularly ferocious fight scene, she most certainly gets her licks in. Furiosa is tenacious, determined, and as tough as the come.

#4 – The Bride (“Kill Bill: Volume 1 & 2”)

Fueled by an insatiable thirst for vengeance, Uma Thurman’s Bride slices and dices her way through countless baddies as good as any, better than most. And it’s telling that she is arguably the toughest character you’ll find in the entirety of Quentin Tarantino’s hyper-violent filmography. That’s saying something. Thurman delivers the whole package: brains, brutality, grit and moxie. Oh, and she does the bulk of her damage with her custom-made Hattori Hanzō samurai sword. Tough? Without question!

#3 – Sarah Connor (“Terminator 2: Judgement Day”)

In the first Terminator picture, Sarah Connor was essentially a girl running from danger. Boy how things change in “Terminator 2”. Linda Hamilton bulked up and gave Sarah a grittier edge with a hardened militaristic personality. Knowing the war that’s coming, Sarah fights alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger every step of the way. Whether it’s with her fists or a wide assortment of weaponry, she blasts away at anyone who gets in her path human or robotic. This new Sarah Connor certainly left her mark on the movie landscape and has to be on this list.

#2 – Princess Leia (“Star Wars” Series)

When watching the original “Star Wars”, it doesn’t take long to see that Princess Leia is much more than some damsel in distress. In the franchise’s earliest scenes we see her open rebellion against the evil Galactic Empire and her unwillingness to compromise. It also doesn’t take Han and Luke long to see that she’s a no-nonsense woman who tells it like it is. She’s handy with the laser blaster and she doesn’t mind putting herself in danger to help others. She plays a pivotal role in saving Han’s life and it was Leia who killed Jabba the Hutt. Carrie Fisher’s Leia is as surly as any tough guy and she has more smarts than most.

#1- Ellen Ripley (“Alien” Series)

It may be unfair, but any time I see Sigourney Weaver, I automatically think of Ellen Ripley. I absolutely love this character and her toughness is a key reason. In the first “Alien” picture (SPOILER) she was the only survivor of her ship’s crew and she single-handedly killed the alien. In the second film we see just how tough Ripley is. She uses grenades, flamethrowers, pulse rifles, and even a robotic crane to kill more aliens, even their queen. In the third film she takes more drastic measures to quell an alien spread. Throughout the series Ripley encounters a variety of so-called “tough guys”. Isn’t it interesting that she is the one who actually survives. Sounds like she’s the one who’s truly tough.

There you have it. There were several others that I considered but these stood out the most. Do you agree or disagree with my list? Do you see someone who I left off? Who would you include on your list? Please take time to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

REVIEW: “Tom & Jerry” (2021)

March 10, 2021 by Keith Garlington

You can count me among the many who grew up watching “Tom and Jerry”. Not the countless straight to DVD feature films, but the classic Hanna and Barbera shorts that have played and replayed for decades. And as a testament to their timelessness, my two kids (both in their upper teens now) latched onto the cat and mouse rivals when they were children, cackling at their wacky hijinks and watching them whenever they were on television.

This latest iteration of the titular slapstick duo has been in the works since 2009. Created as a live-action/computer-animated mash-up, “Tom & Jerry” is helmed by director Tom Story. The story takes place in New York City where all animals (and only animals) are animated. Don’t ask me why. I really have no idea. Weird singing pigeons, elephants, peacocks, a bengal tiger, and of course Thomas D. Cat and Jerome A. Mouse, all vividly animated and melded into the real-world setting. Right off the bat you notice the animation as one of the film’s strengths (except for the annoying pigeons but that’s enough about them).

You might think Tom and Jerry would be the stars of their own movie but that’s not the case. In fact they often play second fiddle to the human characters, namely Kayla (Chloë Grace Moretz). She’s a down-on-her-luck twenty-something who has lost her job but fibs her way into a temporary position at New York City’s Royal Gate Hotel. She wins the trust of the hotel’s manager Rob Delaney but catches the ire of Terrance (Michael Peña), the event manager and the film’s human antagonist. What’s funny is that he’s also the only person smart enough to recognize how ridiculous things become.

Image Courtesy of Warner Bros.

It turns out the Royal Gate is set to host the proverbial ‘Wedding of the Century‘ between high society socialites Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta (Pallavi Sharda). Preparations are underway but are instantly threatened when both Tom and Jerry arrive. Unfortunately we only get their signature chaotic mayhem in a few small bursts and in ways that only seems to serve the human characters and their stories. The film is mostly focused on Kayla who’s tasked with removing the mouse problem once Jerry moves into the hotel. And what better way to impress management and secure full-time employment than getting rid of the rodent and saving the big wedding? So she hires Tom to discreetly help. Guess how that goes.

So basically Tom and Jerry end up relegated to supporting duty for the trite and shallow human stories. In fairness asking two non-speaking animated characters who were at their best doing six-minute shorts to carry a movie like this is a tall order. But this movie needs more of them. Still “Tom & Jerry” does have a playful spirit which young kids will enjoy and it scatters a few giggles along the way which keep it from being too dry. And while this is no “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”, the classic 2-D animation is a warm and nostalgic touch. If only those pesky (and boring) human characters would have stayed out of the way. “Tom & Jerry” is now showing in theaters and streaming on HBO Max.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

First Glance: “Thunder Force”

March 9, 2021 by Keith Garlington

So what if I told you Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer were set to play a crime-fighting superhero duo? Well get ready because that’s exactly what we’re getting in the upcoming action comedy “Thunder Force”. Streaming giant Netflix has dropped the first trailer and I have to say it looks a lot like what you might expect – silly, over the top, and more than a little cringe-worthy.

“Thunder Force” is written and directed by Ben Falcone, husband to McCarthy and the person behind many of her movies. I hate to say it, but that’s not a good sign. I do like Octavia Spencer and I don’t know what drew her to this role. But who knows, maybe it’s just a goofy carefree romp worthy of a giggle or two. On the other hand, it could just as easily be Adam Sandler kind of bad. We will know pretty soon.

“Thunder Force” premieres April 9th on Netflix. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “WandaVision” (2021)

March 8, 2021 by Keith Garlington

I think it’s safe to say that we have reached a point to where everything Marvel Studios touches turns to gold. You could say one reason is because the mastermind behind the MCU Kevin Feige and his team of creators have defined the superhero movie genre for an entire generation. For better or for worse, Marvel has set a standard so high that many audiences reject (almost out of compulsion) any other unique vision or approach to the genre. Don’t believe me? Ask the DCEU. Movies like the groundbreaking “Wonder Woman” and “Shazam!” (which you could argue is the most MCU movie of their entire catalog) aside, much of the DCEU has been met with at least some resistance (and in many cases tons).

But not so for Marvel. Part of it is due to the allegiance of dedicated fans (and in some cases critics) who heartily embrace anything (and I do mean anything) the studio does. But it’s also because Marvel has been synonymous with quality and they’ve truly done something incredible with the MCU. While they aren’t always scrutinized the way they could be, MCU films are routinely good and always entertaining. They’ve done well casting their characters and picking the big screen stories they want to tell.

Image Courtesy of Marvel Studios

After all they have done to change the superhero blockbuster landscape, now they look to do the same to episodic streaming. “WandaVision” marks the first of several limited streaming series coming to Disney+. Its story is told over nine episodes and the series was advertised as something we’ve never seen before from the MCU. We were also told it would have major repercussions for Phase Four (or whatever Marvel is calling this) and future storylines. The series brings together two second-tier characters from the Marvel films (and two of my favorites from the comics) and in a snap moved them higher up on the MCU food chain. But that doesn’t mean “WandaVision” is without flaws.

The series was presented in a half-hour television sitcom format with Matt Shakman directing each. It was given a hefty budget which becomes more obvious the deeper we get into the story. But most importantly, the series brings back the two stars from the MCU movies, Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff and Paul Bettany as Vision. Obviously seeing them both together in a post-“Endgame” story raises a TON of questions and adds even more appeal. Olsen and Bettany had good chemistry in the movies but here they really shine, even as the show’s sitcom gimmick starts to wear thin.

“WandaVision” is built on a big central mystery so getting too far into the plot could potentially spoil its effect. Essentially the setup is this: mere weeks after the events of “Avengers: Endgame” Wanda and Vision are living a happy suburban life in the small idyllic town of Westview, New Jersey. In an effort to fit in, both hide their identities from their neighbors and townsfolk. But here’s the catch, their life plays out like a TV sitcom complete with opening credits and laugh tracks. Each episode (minus the final two) is set in a new decade which the sitcom framework conveys. For example, episode 1 is presented in 4:3 black-and-white and is riffing on 1950’s television, specifically “The Dick Van Dyke Show” with a dash of “Leave it to Beaver”. Episode 2 moves to the 1960’s evoking “I Love Lucy”. Episode 3 shifts to color and has a “The Brady Bunch” vibe. And so on…

Image Courtesy of Marvel Studios

At first this comical conceit is a lot of fun, but it slowly and steadily runs out of gas especially when Wanda and Vision begin noticing something is off in their seemingly television-perfect life together. Whether it’s the behavior from the reoccurring characters who pop back up in every decade (none better than Kathryn Hahn’s quintessential nosy neighbor Agnes), Wanda’s instant pregnancy, or creepy unexplainable visions. The mystery of what’s going on in Westview quickly becomes the most interesting component of the show. Yet “WandaVision” sticks with the nostalgic sitcom gag all the way through episode 7. And when over half of these roughly 30 minute episodes is spent laughing and nodding at decades of sitcom history it leaves little time to dig into the much more compelling elements of the story.

In fairness, the sitcom bits aren’t arbitrary. The show does eventually connect them and add context to their existence. In other words they make sense. But on a week-by-week basis they do account for a lot of the running time. The scraps are given to agents of S.W.O.R.D. who set up a base outside of Westview to monitor what’s going on there. They’re led by the blandly antagonistic Director Hayward (Josh Stamberg). These scenes also feature three returning MCU side characters: the equally bland FBI Agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), a returning but inconsequential Darcy Lewis (Kay Dennings), and one of the show’s most intriguing pieces Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Paris). Monica was the adorable little girl from “Captain Marvel”. Now she’s grown up and clearly has a big future ahead in the MCU.

The last two episodes are the longest and finally give us some needed answers while revealing who has been pulling all of the strings. This is the series at its best, wrapping up some story angles, leaving others wide open, and introducing some ‘magical’ new elements into the MCU that is sure to have some long-lasting impact. It also features an eye-popping final showdown that truly is unlike anything the MCU has done before. It’s where the show’s bigger budget can be seen the most.

Image Courtesy of Marvel Studios

Not everything wraps up quite so nicely. A couple of characters just up and vanish in the final episode (at least one has an excuse we can halfway buy). There’s also the unavoidable question of where are Wanda’s friends from the Avengers? Yes Thor is in space, Cap is old, etc. But no one saw what was going on or felt the need to check on Wanda? Also the finale exposes a certain mid-series surprise appearance to be nothing more than a shameless attention-grab. It earned Marvel plenty of headlines and online chatter but weakly ended as a lame anatomy joke reminiscent of something you would see on Beavis and Butthead.

Hiccups aside, “WandaVision” still accomplishes what it sets out to do: 1) Show that streaming episodic television is an exciting an effective means of telling fresh MCU stories and filling out their large sprawling universe. 2) It fleshes out Wanda and Vision, not so much their backstories but their relationship which is the true centerpiece of the series. “WandaVision” adds a much-needed layer of humanity between them that earns our empathy and makes them big players moving forward. 3) It moves the MCU forward in a meaningful way and with potentially far-reaching implications. All together “WandaVision” may not be the most seamless television series experience. But it does expand the Marvel Cinematic Universe in an exciting way while setting the table for the slew of other Marvel streaming shows on the horizon. “WandaVision” is streaming now on Disney+.