Justice League (2017)

Justice League (2017)

Directors: Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon

Cast: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Jason Momoa, Amy Adams, Ezra Miller, J.K. Simmons, Jeremy Irons, Billy Crudup, Diane Lane, Amber Heard, Robin Wright

I started collecting comics when I was nine years old. I discovered the world of comic books through a neighbor of mine who had mountains of them. Back then, you were either a Marvel fan or a DC fan, it was always a clash of who had the best superheroes. Who would win if they ever fought against each other? Who was the most powerful? And it was all about those big events like Marvel’s ‘Secret Wars’ , where all of the heroes got together to defeat an all-powerful villain. Nowadays, these clashes have translated to the silver screen. Who makes the best comic book movies? Marvel or DC? Are you with Warner Bros. or are ya with Disney? Maybe you’re like me and enjoy both sides equally, I mean, why side, when you can have all the fun and enjoy the whole shebang? Cool thing is that each production company is always trying to make the biggest and the baddest comic book film ever made, all to please us, the viewer. They don’t always succeed, but boy is it fun to watch them try. Up to my writing this, I’d say that there’s no doubt that Marvel is winning the day in terms of who makes the best comic book movies. Marvel seems to have the formula figured out, and they are ahead of the game, no doubt. But DC is slowly learning from their mistakes. Is Justice League a step in the right direction?  

This time around, Batman is trying to gather superheroes to form a group of heroes to protect the earth from a coming threat. Apparently, a villain called Steppenwolf is hell bent on world domination, but in order to do so, he has to recollect three “mother boxes” that will give him the power he seeks in order to achieve his goals. Will Batman gather the team in time, and if he does, will they be enough? How can this world without a Superman confront such a threat?

For those of you not in the know, this film had a bumpy road towards the silver screen. Zack Snyder was directing it, but he suffered the death of a loved one, so he stepped down to deal with that. Warner Bros. decided to hire Josh Whedon director of Avengers (2012) and Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in order to finish the film. Whedon did a couple of re-writes and reshoots and boom, we got Justice League. Warner Bros. took the opportunity to make the film a bit “lighter”, the reason for this being that audiences have felt that DC movies are “too dark and brooding”, well, at least when compared to Marvel movies, which are bright and shiny and know how to juggle heroic elements with comedy. 

This whole making DC movies lighter thing has been going on for a while now. Warner Bros. has been reactionary in this sense, they react to whatever Marvel does. And I think that’s actually part of the problem, they aren’t trend setters. They are following, reacting to whatever Marvel does. In this sense, Marvel has proven themselves the leaders of this whole comic book movie craze. Warner Bros tried making Suicide Squad (2016) lighter and funnier with some reshoots, but that turned out to be a failed experiment. With Justice League, DC finally found the right balance between comedy and super hero antics, and it’s all thanks to Whedon’s influence in the project. The funny moments are truly funny, well written and effective, so I’d say you guys can rest assured the film delivers.

In terms of these six heroes coming together, I’d say they did a good job as well. I gotta say I had a kick out of seeing all these heroes together on the silver screen. Nobody is left behind, they all shine, they all kick ass, they work together. It’s cool seeing their different personalities clash. Some are seasoned veterans, others are just learning how to be heroes. How cool is it to see Flash afraid of getting into battle? I’d say he is the one that grows the most as a character, learning how to grow into the role of a hero. Flash also has the funniest lines in the film. For the record, I like Ben Affleck as Batman. Momoa is the badboy of the group as Aquaman. Cyborg is surprisingly crucial to the story. And Wonder Woman is growing to be the leader of the pack. And speaking of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, she looks even more beautiful on this one, I have a crush on this girl. She’s just stunning on this film.

On the negative side, the villain is your typical “world domination” type, which felt very “been there done that”. The villain being a completely computer generated character didn’t help matters much in terms of giving it life, Hollywood has to learn that lesson. We want thespians Hollywood, not pixels. No matter how cool they may look, nothing will ever replace the performance of a real actor. In this type of film, the villains shenanigans are just a trigger to get our heroes in motion and what really matters is how they get from here to there, how they go about it. The McGuffin this time are three powerful items called “The Mother Boxes” and basically, they are what moves the plot along. It’s the type of film where the villains motivations don’t matter as long as we get that cool superhero action, which can be seen as a negative point. In a good honest to god great film, everything is that much better if we care about what’s moving the story along. You definetly feel the voice of two different directors, and a bunch of producers messing with the movie, as a result the film does feel a bit uneven. It feels a bit disjointed in terms of tone and style. But whatever, Justice League is a no brainer. It’s meant to be a fun movie and in that sense, it delivers every step of the way. There are surprises and cool moments that will have those geeky fans wetting their pants with joy. Stay for the two extra endings!

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Rum Diary (2011)

Title: The Rum Diary (2011)

Director: Bruce Robinson

Cast: Johnny Depp, Michael Rispoli, Giovanni Ribisi, Aaron Eckhart, Amber Heard, Richard Jenkins

Review:

I was looking forward to finally seeing The Rum Diary for various reasons: number one being that I’m a huuuuge fan of Hunter S. Thompson’s work, so this being an adaptation of one of his “lost books” well, of course I was excited to see it come to life on theater screen. Second: the story takes place entirely in Puerto Rico, and they actually went ahead and shot the film in Puerto Rico, so I was excited as hell to see my country in a film, by the way, I want to go right ahead and say that Puerto Rico looks beautiful on this film. Another selling point for me was that this is a film based on a Hunter S. Thompson book, I was looking forward to a heavy dose of Gonzo madness for the evening. Sadly, I was a bit disappointed with the film adaptation of The Rum Diary. If you are so inclined, please keep reading and find out why.

The Rum Diary presents us with Paul Kemp, a writer who’s just arrived to Puerto Rico (during the 1950’s) to begin working for The San Juan Star, an English language newspaper that ran in the island for years and years. When Kemp arrives he is confronted with a heated political climate amongst the Puerto Rican people. A lot of that heat stems from the clash between the American and the Puerto Rican cultures. During those years, there was a very strong anti-American sentiment going on in the island, and depending on who you ask these days, that feeling still exists. Puerto Ricans would call Americans ‘Gringo’s’ and the Americans would call the Puerto Rican’s ‘Jibaros’; neither one had any desire to understand the other. This is the reason why when Hunter S. first arrives at the San Juan Star, he is welcomed by a bunch of Puerto Ricans screaming things like “Gringo go home!” and the such. American’s saw Puerto Rico as a land of business opportunity; a land where hotels, casinos and resorts could bloom and prosper. Puerto Rican’s saw the Americans as invaders coming here to take advantage of the land. Amongst all the madness, Kemp meets his new boss and co-workers, most of which are a bunch of washed up has beens that resort to drunkenness to deal with the current state of their lives. Kemp’s first assignments include writing the horoscope and sports section; not exactly the most exciting of assignments for Kemp. So when Sanderson, a big money entrepreneur wants to pay Kemp to write a  series of brochures to sell the idea of making a huge hotel on a nearby island, Kemp considers it. Will Kemp form a part of this business venture?

The Rum Diary was a novel that Hunter S. Thompson had written back in the 60’s and is based on the experiences he had while living and working in the island of Puerto Rico. Thompson had ignored the novel for many years because it had gotten rejected many times over by many publishers. But when Hunter S. Thompson and his writing became increasingly popular, then they were salivating to print one of the first novels he’d ever written. And so, even though this novel was written during the 60’s, it actually ended up getting published in 1998. I like the book a lot, it captures what Puerto Rico was like during the 50’s, commenting on the growing boom in businesses and development that was going on in the island. I enjoyed reading about Kemp’s adventures through streets that I walk through all the time; this is something the film also got right. The filmmakers actually went out and filmed on the beaches and areas of old San Juan where Hunter S. Thompson had his adventures in. This gives the film a level of authenticity that I enjoyed. The novel (and the film as well) addressed Puerto Rico’s eternal political climate. Should we be independent of the United States? Should we be another state? Should we be a common wealth and have the best of both worlds? These three ideologies have always divided the Puerto Rican people, even to this very day and I found it so interesting that it was just as much of an issue in the 50’s as it is today.

Hunter S. Thompson, enjoying the beaches of Puerto Rico. Notice the hotel in the background. 

Other issues the film addresses are still relevant for the Puerto Rico of today. Hotels have taken over the coasts, nowadays there are so many hotels in the San Juan area that you have to pay to see the ocean. And that’s a big part of what Paul Kemp is against in this story, he doesn’t know if he should be a part of this rampaging capitalism, building and building and building. I recently went to a Hotel right smack in the area where Hunter S. Thompson lived and wrote what we now know as The Rum Diary, and all I can say is, I’m glad I wasn’t the one paying! A breakfast for four was well over a hundred dollars! And we’re talking about breakfast here people! Eggs, ham, juice; for a hundred bucks? Get out of town! There is a character in the film called Sanderson, he is the developer who wants to make the hotels, at one moment in the film he looks at the beach and says “an ocean of money, waiting to be made!” And that’s how developers see Puerto Rico; they don’t care about eliminating beautiful natural areas that people can enjoy for free, nope, the only thing they care about is making their hotels for the rich people who can afford them. In the book, Kemp muses about the beauty of the island, and nature, and he wonders if it should all be destroyed so that tourists can come and waste their money on casinos.

Of course this is the kind of subject matter that Hunter wrote about, he spent a huge part of his life traveling from hotel to hotel, from casino to casino, from hotel bar to hotel bar. Even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1994) takes part mostly in hotels and casinos. He knew what he was talking about, he lived in hotels for a huge part of his life, but he hated the fakeness of it all. Why switch nature for fakeness? These are the things Paul Kemp partially muses about on this film. One thing I liked about the film were those scenes that we see Hunter S. Thompson sitting in front of his typewriter simply musing about his situation. That’s when we get Hunter S. Thompsons thoughts and mentality; thats when we get to know him. We have a couple of those scenes on this film, but in my opinion they weren’t enough. I didn’t feel I was with Hunter S. for the ride. Johnny Depp’s portrayal of the character and the way he was written, made it feel like Thompsons spirit was distant this time around. It surfaced briefly for a few seconds then hid again in the midst of the banality. One scene I did like, and it’s a scene that has Thompson talking about how he will always be a writer for the people, that was what Hunter S. was all about, but again these scenes are few, Hunter S. Thompson was a very verbal individual, he always said what he tought and it was tough titty if you didn’t like it. But on this film he is so silent, I wonder why they went with that.  

The rest of the movie? A disappointment. The way I see it, it was a wasted opportunity. Now, I’m not  saying it’s a badly made movie, cause it isn’t. I’m just saying it needed a bit more lunacy. It needed to really capture the essence of being a drunkard, which in my book it didn’t do. I mean, you see Fear and Loathing and you feel the essence and the madness of going on a drug binge. Deep and Benicio really looked wasted, they made us believe it. This does not happen in The Rum Diary. Though Paul Kemp is drinking for a huge part of the film, you don’t get that drunkenness vibe. The madness isn’t there. The big scene where everyone goes to this big carnival, it should have been this totally insane moment, with everyone drunk out of their minds, yet that’s not really what I got from the scene. They should have gone more into what it is to be an alcoholic. So many things just didn’t live up to their full potential, they had all the elements necessary to make a funny and interesting story, for some reason they chose to make it a totally lifeless film. This being a film about Hunter S. Thompson then you know that lifeless and Thompson shouldn’t even go in the same sentence.

They needed a director who was a bit more in tune with Thompson’s craziness. Bruce Robinson, the director behind The Rum Diary is primarily known for having made Withnail and I (1987); a film about a pair of friends who are all searching for their purpose in  life. It captures the bohemian lifestyle, the poverty and the uncertainty of living with very little money and a whole lot of alcohol. Whitnail and I is the story of two guys who want to be something, but aren’t exactly there yet. They are in some sort of middle ground, a limbo. And that film is great, and I enjoyed it immensely, but it’s not what I’d call an exciting film. And neither is The Rum Diary, which didn’t need to be another Withnail and I in terms of pace. Unfortunately, the themes and the characters in The Rum Diary where all screaming for something better than what we got. It’s as if you had all the ingredients to make a great Cuba Libre, but in the end you didn’t put enough rum in the mix, so you end up with a watered down drink. The result is a very banal film. The most outstanding thing about the film was Giovanni Ribisi's performance as Moburg, and even he was underused.

But what disappointed me the most was that this film wasn’t a faithful translation of the book. They tacked on an ending that never exists within the pages of Hunter S. Thompsons book. The whole third half of the film was completely made up by the writers. And so, we end up with a film that has a drug induced scene that was tacked onto it merely to connect this film with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1994), as a way to let other people understand that this is actually a prequel to that film. And yet another disappointment was the elimination of ‘Yeamon’ the character that Kemp befriends once he gets to the island. They twisted things around beyond recognition, therefore, I, as a fan of the book, was not pleased. My point is, if your going to ignore the source material, then at least do something that’s worth a damn. In this case, they made a film that was boring and ultimately feels unimportant when it could have been so much more. Hell, even Depp didn’t bring his A-game entirely, for some reason, his voice in the film, his character, felt muted. Fans of Hunter S. Thompson won’t get enough of him and fans of the book wont get that either. You’ll just get a so-so movie that had potential, but failed to live up to it. 

Rating: 3 out of 5 

Drive Angry (2011)

Title: Drive Angry (2011)

Director: Patrick Lussier

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner, Billy Burke, David Morse

Review:

Drive Angry is the title they gave this film because that’s exactly what the producers of this film expect everyone to do once they walk out of the theater: Drive Angry, very freaking angry! I guess with that title, they figured they might as well let audiences know what they can expect ahead of time. Wow, what a bad movie. That debt that Nicolas Cage has with the U.S. Government for millions of dollars in unpaid taxes must be a real bitch because the guy is taking every pay day he can get! No matter how crappy the movie is! Are you making a terrible film no one wants to be in? Contact Nicolas Cage’s agent, I’m sure he’ll have no problem squeezing you in to his continuously growing line up of bad films. Yes my friends, here we are once again talking about an extremely shitty Nicolas Cage film which he obviously did out of necessity. At least I hope he did! No self righteous actor would have agreed to be in this poor excuse for a movie. But alas, you might think I’m being overtly cruel with this picture, but I tell you I am not! As I watched it, I just couldn’t help seeing the words “tear this one a new asshole” flashing in my minds eye. And so here I am, poised and ready to tear this one shit stain of a movie a new one. 

This pic makes this film look cooler than it actually is

This film tells the tale of John Milton (get it?) a guy who has just escaped from hell itself! And what is his reason for escaping the fiery pits of Hades? To save his infant granddaughter from being sacrificed by a cult of inbred Satanists; so he has a noble cause at least. Along the way, he befriends an ex-waitress who has just quit her job. And guess what? She's in luck because Mr. Milton arrives just in time to save her from being killed by her abusive boyfriend. Of course, this is just a lame-o excuse so that she feels she like she owes her life to him, so that Cage can have a hot babe tagging along in his adventures. Funniest part of the whole film is that this girl has nothing to do with anything! She’s not related to Milton, the baby isn’t hers, and she has nothing to do with the Satanists, yet she insists in tagging along, risking her life for no reason whatsoever. A simply thank you would have been fine. Unbeknownst to this poor girl is the fact that Milton is being followed by a demon from hell who calls himself ‘The Accountant’. This demon is trying to recover Satan’s gun. You see,  Milton stole it from under Lucifer’s noses. And yes, you read that right kids, Satan has guns in this movie! Shouldnt be that weird, if you accept the fact that there are cars in hell as well, Milton actually escapes from hell in one! Ha! But anyways, Milton doesnt just steal any old gun, this is the gun with which Satan intends to kill God with on Judgment Day! The guns name is “The God Killer”! To be honest, I don’t know why Satan would want this gun; all it does is fire crappy looking CGI bullets that turn anything they hit into an even crappier CGI effect. Will The Accountant ever catch up with John Milton? Will Milton get to rescue his granddaughter from the clutches of the Satanists? 

When you watch Nicholas Cage acting in films like Drive Angry, The Wickerman (2006) or Season of the Witch (2011) you kind of have to wonder if he still gives a crap about acting. You also have to wonder if he’s sold his soul to the devil. I mean what is this, his fourth Satan related film? Let’s see, first there’s Ghost Rider (2006) where he sells his soul to the devil in order to save his fathers life. He then goes on to become the devil’s personal henchman. Then there’s Season of the Witch (2011) a terrible film in which Cage must go on a journey to destroy an evil witch who is possessed by a demon. Then there’s Drive Angry in which he steals Satan’s gun and escapes from Hell to stop a group of Satanists from sacrificing his granddaughter, and finally, there’s the upcoming Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance a film that is going to be showing its ugly head sometime in 2012. Not exactly the best films to have on your resume, but then again, considering how much Cage gets paid per picture, the guy should be out of debt and making good movies in no time! Right? In fact, in a small glimmer of hope for Cage’s cinematic career, it was recently announced that Cage would re-unite with Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze on a new film project. Something good should come of that reunion, after all, these where the same three guys who brought us the critically acclaimed Adaptation (2002). I’m sure one day we’ll look back at Nicolas Cage’s filmography and think of this particular time in his career as his “tax paying films”; when you think about it, it comes as no surprise that the villain in Drive Angry is called ‘The Accountant’. 

Nicolas Cage's worst nightmare! The Accountant!

Drive Angry is the kind of film that is so badly made that your compulsion to burst out laughing wont be helped; it’ll just come out of you naturally. How bad is this film? Let me count the ways: first off, this film has some of the worst computer animated images I’ve seen since Dinocroc vs. Supergator (2010). I mean, the CGI on this film looked like something you’d expect to see on a Sci-Fi Channel movie of the week. How the hell could Patrick Lussier, this films director, look at this footage and be okay with it? How could he live with himself knowing he’d be responsible for this terrible film? Heres an example of how shitty the effects are: there is this one scene in which a truck hits a bunch of police cars and ends up flying through the air hovering above Cage’s car, and then falls back on the ground. This scene is a text book example of a badly constructed action sequence. The scene was not convincing at all. It had zero believability, zero tension, what it did have was the fakest looking computer effects! The truck was so obviously not there! You know how in some of the worst movies, when characters are talking inside of a moving car, the background looks fake and you can tell the actors are just sitting in front of a projection screen? That’s what happens on this film, you can tell they are sitting on a car with a green screen behind them! Ugh! I haven’t seen effects this bad since Ballistic: Eck Vs. Sever (2002). I clearly remember people laughing at that one in the theater, I’m sure Drive Angry had the same effect on many theater crowds. Just expect some of the worst CGI of your life. 

The worst special effect of all? Nicolas Cage's hair do! 

Patrick Lussier is the director orchestrating this attempted homage to Satanic films. It’s obvious Lussier and crew saw many Satanic classics before deciding to sit down to make this one, the most obvious influence being Race with the Devil (1975), even going as far as using the same car used in that film. Unfortunately, no matter how hard they tried, this isn’t a good film about Satanist. Then again, I really haven’t seen a film about Satanists that wasn’t funny or goofy to some extent. I mean, there are some good ones out there like for example Roman Polanski’s Satanic double whammy Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Ninth Gate (1999). It’s really difficult for me to see a film about Satan worshippers and not find it silly somehow, I guess adults dressed up in black hoods, thinking Satan is real is kind of silly to me. If you don’t believe me, then watch The Devils Rain (1975) where you can see Ernest Borgnine become Satan with a beer belly. If you want to laugh even harder check out Christopher Lee in To the Devil a Daughter (1976), and while your there, say hello to Christopher Lee’s ass while your at it, it makes a cameo during an embarrassingly bad orgy sequence. It’s not for nothing that this film ended up being the final nail on Hammer Film Studios coffin. I guess you can add Drive Angry to your list of silly Satanic films.

"Did I ever tell you this here skin jacket is a symbol of my individuality 

and my belief in personal freedom?"

Apparently, portraying a truly frightening Satanic cult isn’t quite as easy as we might think; the results are often times unintentionally funny. On Drive Angry we get the most pathetic group of Satanists ever! Some dance around naked, others don’t, I guess some are more into Satanism then others. The Satanists in Drive Angry are so pussy, that when they actually have a chance to sacrifice a baby and bring forth hell on earth, they think about it. Oh come on! You have the magical dagger, the moon is full and you have the baby in your hands, what are you waiting for?? Jeez. The most satanic thing they do is sit around drinking beers on the night hell is supposed to come to earth! But yeah, this movie is hilarious. I guess maybe in that way it can be enjoyed. To watch it and make fun of it with your buddies, at least thats what I did with my buddies. It does have on good thing going for it. The dialog made me laugh a couple of times. An example: “You know what this batch means? It means Federal Bureau of get the FUCK out of my way!” That’s right my friends, making a film about Satanist, and having it be good or frightening isn’t something that happens very often. I can count with the fingers on my hand how many films have achieved that. I just remembered another good thing that the film has going for it: it gave a small role to Tom Atkins doing what he does best: playing a tough as nails cop! 

Since the film is called Drive Angry, I was expecting it to at least have one memorable car chase sequence, something that really stands out. I was expecting something along the lines of a Fast and the Furious film but with a supernatural angle, or even better Mad Max with a supernatural angle.  And you know what? I bet if done correctly, this kind of film could actually work too. Unfortunately, the chase sequences are bland and filled with bad cgi, which proves to us two things: this movie not only got its supernatural/horror elements all wrong, it got it's car movie angle all wrong as well. Where were the good car chase sequences in this film? This proves my theory about putting guys who are on the technical side of filmmaking to direct, it doesn’t always work. Check out films like Virus (1999), Spawn (1997) and Blade Trinity (2004). All directed by writers, editors, and special effects technicians who thought they were directors. The results with those films where no less disastrous than Drive Angry a film directed by one Patrick Lussier, a guy who made a career out of editing Wes Craven films. In my book he isn’t a good storyteller or filmmaker, he might be a good editor which is what he’s supposed to be good at, but directing and telling a story with a film? Not his forte. You know what? Even his editing sucked on this one, some scenes just didn't match up; if you dont believe me check out this horrible sequence that takes place while The Accountant is chasing Cage down a bridge. Wow, logic, pacing, editing and everything else where entirely forsaken during that scene! If you ask me, My Bloody Valentine (2009) was as good as this director got. Surprisingly, Lussier will be directing yet again! Let’s see if he makes a worthy Halloween flick with his upcoming Halloween III slated for 2012. Buttom line with Drive Angry? This is yet another crap fest to add to Nicolas Cage’s ever declining filmography. Will Cage ever recover from this downward spiral in his career? Will he ever make a good film again? Or will the name Nicolas Cage continue being synonymous with bad films? Only time will tell with these questions. Let’s hope Cage will someday try to regain his dignity as an actor and do something that really cooks, instead of something like Drive Angry which fizzled. 

Rating: 1 out of 5