Vice

Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell, Tyler Perry, Alison Pill, Lily Rabe, Jesse Plemons

Director: Adam McKay

Writer: Adam McKay


Whatever one might think about his politics or the quality of his work, Adam McKay is undoubtedly one of the most interesting filmmakers working today. After having built a career out of making cleverly, creatively dumb comedy films with Will Ferrell, his forte has transitioned over to what’s called the essay film. Following in the tradition of such documentaries as F for FakeThe Gleaners & I and pretty much every Michael Moore film, McKay’s latest filmography is one that blurs the line between fact and fiction, expresses abstract ideas in concrete, tangible terms and engages with the viewer in an open, self-reflexive dialogue. He employed this format to startling effect in The Big Short where he deconstructed the causes of the financial crisis of 2008 in a way that was both entertaining and educational. McKay has a genius for explaining complex themes and concepts in simple ways that viewers can easily understand and there is no other filmmaker working today who is pushing the possibilities of the essay film further than he is. With his latest film McKay once again draws from the well of modern history to recount the story of one of the most notorious and reviled figures in American politics (which is seriously saying something!), former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Vice follows Dick Cheney through his political career, starting with his days as a White House intern during the Nixon administration and ending with his turn as Vice President under George W. Bush (a delightfully cartoonish Sam Rockwell). While maintaining a personal life with his wife and two daughters, Cheney learns the ins and outs of White House politics and takes each lesson to heart as he sees presidents rise and fall and discovers the truth about the true power that runs the country. Finding great success under the Ford and Reagan administrations, Cheney’s time truly comes when the buffoonish Dubya invites him over to his Texas ranch and invites him to be his second-in-command. Realising that he can transcend what has traditionally been more or less a ceremonial role in the US government, Cheney accepts and offers to oversee the more “mundane” parts of governance such as bureaucracy, military, energy and, uh… foreign policy. With all the influence he needs and nobody watching, Cheney ascends to become the country’s de facto ruler. Working from the shadows, he imposes his will upon the United States with an iron fist and, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, sets the nation on a path that will lead them into a catastrophic war.

Looking the spitting image of the man thanks to the work of the make-up team and sporting a soft yet menacing growl throughout, Christian Bale (who never met a character he wouldn’t completely transform his body to play) portrays Cheney in this portrait of an infamous public figure about whom surprisingly little is actually known. The film records how he started off as a blue-collar drunk barely scraping by and rose little by little to become the puppetmaster of the Bush administration, the man who was really in charge while Dubya played the fool and distracted everyone from what was really going on. Between those two points is an endless gulf of ambiguities and unknowns which McKay fills in with commentary, abridgements and digression, all of which serve to help us get to the heart of who Cheney really was and what he wanted. The problem is that by the time I got to the end, I still wasn’t sure who exactly the film thought Cheney was. The Vice-President was a very bad man who did some very bad things, that much the movie is clear on, yet it never manages to tap into what exactly they think Cheney’s ideology is or if he even has one. We gets hints and implications such as how Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, an energy company that just so happened to do well when the USA invaded Iraq, but that alone doesn’t seem sufficient in light of how the film depicts him.

The way the film tells it, there were two figures in his life who had the most profound effect on Cheney. The first was his wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams), a Lady Macbeth figure if ever there was one (there’s even a scene in which Dick and Lynne engage in a Shakespearian exchange). She is shown to be the woman behind the man, the one who berates him into making something of himself and who reminds him at every turn not to forget what it is they’ve both been working for (whatever that is). The other is Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell) the slimy Republican who taught Cheney everything he knew about being ruthless, sneaky and totally amoral in modern politics. “What do we believe in?” Cheney asks him upon becoming a card-carrying member of the Republican Party and Rumsfeld laughs uproariously in his face. Between these two forces moulding him into the villainous political mastermind he would become, we get a sense of Cheney as a man of great, pitiless ambition who will pull every dirty trick in the book and sell out on every fibre of his moral being in order to get what he wants. But what does he want? Well, when the film allows Cheney himself a chance to explain, it appears that everything he did was about protecting his country and its people. “I will not apologise”, he says hardheartedly and with contempt “for doing what needed to be done so that your loved ones can sleep peaceably at night”. But that’s not the truth of it and, the harder the film tries to get under the skin of this inscrutable man, the more confused everything gets.

That wouldn’t necessarily be so bad since few things in life are ever that simple and one can never truly know the true depths of another person’s soul (or lack thereof) in its infinite entirety. Vice however doesn’t know that it’s confused. It charges along with all the confidence of a white, rich, C-student man running for the presidency through the main events of Cheney’s life, jumping back and forth in time for no apparent narrative reason, and in the end it never manages to land on a satisfying note. There are several gimmicky moments that are great fun by themselves, Bale delivers a marvellously sinister performance and the creative licence McKay takes to tell this messy story in an engaging and entertaining way does impress. There are fourth wall breaks, a syncopated editing style that keeps the viewer on their toes, an unconventional framing device with a twist ending, a false end credits sequence and dozens of little touches here and there that allow McKay’s cheeky sense of humour to remain prominent through it all. It doesn’t amount to much though because the elaborate, convoluted essay that McKay has constructed doesn’t end up revealing any kind of meaningful insight on its own subject. Unless you are below a certain age or don’t live in the United States (both of which, I’ll admit, are true about myself), Vice has little of worth to offer on the question of who Dick Cheney is beyond, as Bale himself suggested in his Golden Globe acceptance speech, Satan incarnate.

★★★

Advertisements

Justice League

Cast: Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, Connie Nielsen, J.K. Simmons

Director: Zack Snyder

Writers: Chris Terrio, Joss Whedon


The DCEU does not have the best track record. Between the four movies that have been released so far they have all suffered from some combination of messy storytelling, overreliance on darkness as a substitute for drama, conflated self-importance, unfocused and clashing tones, lack of humanity, and fundamentally misguided acting choices made by a couple of certain castmembers in villainous roles. Even the inspiring, colourful, focused, refreshingly superb Wonder Woman wasn’t able to avoid all of these trappings as a couple of them seeped their way into the third act. Thus we come to Justice League, the movie it’s all been building up to. It’s been a long and turbulent journey getting here and through all the highs and lows, after all the disorder, disappointment and division, Warner Bros. has beaten the odds and created a superhero team up movie that turned out miraculously okay.

As the world mourns the death of Superman (Henry Cavill), Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) learns that a global threat is imminent and executes his plan to form a team of extraordinary people. Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) joins his cause after receiving a warning from her mother Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) about an attack on Themyscria by the ancient villain Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds). While Wayne sets off in search of Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), an aquatic being from Atlantis, and Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), a young man with superhuman speed, Diana tracks down Victor Stone (Ray Fisher), whose body is more machine than man. They learn that Steppenwolf is searching for the three Mother Boxes, prehistoric devices of immense energy hidden all over the world. As Batman attempts to bring what will become the Justice League together however, he finds that he isn’t able to inspire them in the way that only Superman could have done and fears that they will not be able to save the world unless he can find a way to unite them.

‘Okay’ is not the word I want to use to describe a Justice League movie but, after the example set by the prior DC movies, I’ll take okay where I can get it. There are issues with the story as there have been with every other instalment (to varying degrees), but there are also two saving graces: the characters and the tone. The film does struggle to find the right balance between focusing on those characters we’ve already met, namely Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman (it’s not a spoiler to say that Superman returns (Henry Cavill’s name is on the poster) it’s only a spoiler to say how and when), and focusing on those we’re meeting for the first time, namely Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg. It works though because the characters are all likeable and enjoyable to watch. Affleck continues to shine as a Batman whose cold-heartedness in Batman vs. Superman has been tempered, humbled even, by his awe over Superman’s sacrifice and his guilt for the role he played. Gadot is also once again stellar as Diana as she provides the league with its moral centre and a bit of a motherly presence as the combative and often childish acts of the guys often forces her to be the level-headed one (but thankfully not in a way that does a disservice to the character).

Meanwhile the new guys on the block do their best with what they’re given. The Flash is essentially there to provide comic relief through one-liners, bewildered reactions, and just general eccentricity. It’s hit and miss, but when it hits it really does hit. Aquaman has a couple of cool moments and brings enough appeal and attitude to the role that when he butts heads with Batman it doesn’t feel like conflict for its own sake, it feels authentic. The triumph of Miller and Momoa is making their respective characters interesting and entertaining enough that I actually want to see them carry their own movies. The downside is that Cyborg is mostly sidelined to make room for these characters despite being key to the film’s climax. As for Superman, Cavill is finally allowed to use his charm and charisma to play the Man of Steel the way he was meant to be played. I still think the decision to kill off Superman was a fundamentally stupid one, but Cavill’s performance was so good that I now find myself excited about the character’s future.

With the divisive reception of the previous non-Wonder-Woman DC films, the DCEU has put itself through a lot of self-correcting and, while I can’t say that Justice League was a fantastic movie, it did feel like a definite step in the right direction. A major part of this self-correction has been with the tone and with Justice League, Warner Bros. is ever closer to capturing that tone where it can be serious and funny without coming across as pretentious or childish. There are some scenes that hold real emotional weight, as when Batman shares his private fears and anxieties with Wonder Woman or when Superman is briefly reunited with Lois Lane (Amy Adams). Then there are some genuinely funny moments as we witness the banter and conflicts that ensue between this unlikely collection of unlikely characters (Aquaman’s accidental use of the lasso of truth is a highlight). More than that, there were even a couple of moments that I found truly awesome and exciting (my favourite is one that I cannot go into because of spoilers but basically it involves Superman turning his eyes in slow-motion).

Justice League is not the gamechanger that The Avengers was and is by no means a great film. The villain is as bland and forgettable as the MCU’s were at its most unremarkable, the movie relies on clichés and routine dialogue to get things moving, and the third act is about what you would expect. There are also a bunch of big ideas and themes, something that the DCEU has always been much more interested in pursuing than Marvel, that don’t quite get the development they need. The idea of Superman’s death leading the world to a place of despair where the people feel like all hope is lost and where the darker side of humanity is able to roam free without the presence of this benevolent, god-like symbol of truth, liberty and justice to keep it in check is one I would’ve liked to see more of. Still, I’m glad that I saw this film. Even though Wonder Woman is far and away the stronger film, it was so divorced from the other DCEU movies that it could pretty much be regarded as a standalone. This movie had to build something on top of the mess that the other films had left and that, along with a tempestuous production that saw Whedon take over directorial duties when a personal tragedy forced Snyder to drop out, was no easy task. Justice League is a studio movie through and through, where each and every detail has been calculated according to charts and demographics, but a part of me feels like Warner Bros needed to make this movie as a way of decisively bringing this chapter of the DCEU to an end and allowing themselves to start a new one on a new, blank page. Now, much like the people of Earth at the end of this film, I finally feel hopeful about the franchise’s future going forward.

★★★

Nocturnal Animals

Cast: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer, Laura Linney, Andrea Riseborough, Michael Sheen

Director: Tom Ford

Writer: Tom Ford


After having worked as the creative director for both Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, Tom Ford has become a master of blending art, style and beauty in his films. In Nocturnal Animals he has created one of the most meticulously crafted and striking films of the year. It is an ambiguous film and the meaning of Ford’s images is not always clear, as with the very first shots which provoked outrage among both critics and viewers for what they deemed to be gratuity or body shaming. I must confess that I’m somewhat confounded by those images as well. I am restraining myself from revealing the nature of these images because I think the shock must have a role to play in the effect that Ford is going for. I will say that these images did make me feel uncomfortable but they also made me critically aware of my discomfort. Now I’m asking myself whether I was right to feel uncomfortable at all, a question that I suspect Ford must have expected from many of his viewers. This film is so perplexingly uncomfortable and beautiful at once that I think Ford might have been disappointed had I not left the screening feeling confounded.

After hosting a conceptual art exhibit at her gallery Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) receives a manuscript for a novel penned by her ex-husband Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). Susan, living a dejected life of passionless work and love with her adulterous husband Hutton (Arnie Hammer), is captivated by the novel that has been dedicated to her. It tells the dark story of family man Tony Hastings (also played by Gyllenhaal) whose holiday with wife Laura (Isla Fisher) and India (Ellie Bamber) takes a horrific turn when they encounter a gang of reprobates led by Ray Marcus (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). This story provokes memories of Susan’s relationship with Edward and the troubles that drew them apart. He wanted her to pursue her artistic calling whereas she wanted him to be more realistic about his literary aspirations. As Susan reads more of Edward’s novel it becomes clearer to her that the disturbing, devastating story he has conceived is an allusion towards the terrible betrayal that destroyed their marriage.

There are three interrelated narratives being told that Ford blends together into one incredible whole. One is the story of an utterly miserable person reflecting on the choices that have led her to where she is. The other is a dark and twisted tale of loss and revenge. Finally, there is the story of an idealistic romance that woefully (and perhaps inevitably) ends in heartbreak. I was particularly struck by how invested and horrified I, much like Susan, was by the second narrative considering that it’s a fictional story within a fictional story. That narrative alone would have made for a compelling film complete with stellar performances by Taylor-Johnson and Michael Shannon as a worn-down lawman with nothing left to lose. The ultimate story that is being told however adds even greater depth and darkness to what is already an unsettling tale. Isla Fisher’s character for instance serves Edward’s story not only as a wife for his protagonist but also as a clear stand in for Susan. When we see what happens to Tony’s wife later in the novel, it invites all sorts of compelling questions about what exactly Edward is trying to tell his ex-wife by sending her this manuscript and dedicating it to her, especially in light of what we later learn about their marriage.

We see Adams play Susan as both a naïve romantic full of dreams and fancies and as a shell of her former self rendered numb by her cold, empty life. Even when Adams is simply reading the manuscript, she is performing. Her distraught reactions reinforce the ominous nature of Edward’s story every bit as much as Ford’s tone and style in his representation. In this film Susan undergoes a crisis of conscience as she contemplates whether she is being punished for an awful mistake and Adams is to be applauded for deftly conveying her tumultuous, troubled state of mind in a remarkably restrained, understated performance. Gyllenhaal’s Edward also provides an intriguing figure as the Susan’s spurned, estranged ex-husband. The film sets him up as an almost ethereal figure by providing us with two different versions of him: we see the Edward that Susan remembers in her memories and his representation of himself in the novel he’s written. Thus as the film draws closer to the climatic meeting between them, the more intrigued we are to see who he is today and how he really feels about Susan.

The final scene is one that has sparked much debate amongst viewers. Some might call it a confounding ending, but I for one would expect nothing less from such a confounding film as Nocturnal Animals. The film is fascinating in its dark and twisted nature and is almost sickening in its beauty. You want to look away but you just can’t. The cinematography, the colours, the music; it is a film that completely envelops you and refuses to let go. Some scenes are entirely unbearable to watch and yet, much like when I first saw Blue Velvet and A Clockwork Orange, my eyes were fixed squarely on the screen the entire time. It isn’t as violent a film as those two are but it is similar in its dreadful intensity and disturbed artistry. Most of the wounds that are inflicted in this film are emotional ones (the ones in the “real world” anyway) but they are severe all the same. Nocturnal Animals is also an ambiguous film, the kind that believes in providing the pieces to the puzzle but won’t assemble them for you. Watching this film was a gruelling experience but it was also a mesmerising one.

★★★★★

Arrival

Cast: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, Tzi Ma

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Writer: Eric Heisserer


One of the lesser cinematic experiences I had this year came from watching Independence Day: Resurgence, a shameless crash grab that was stupid, dull and nonsensical. Now, as we approach the end of 2016, comes the movie’s perfect antithesis. Arrival, also a movie about aliens coming to Earth (whether or not it’s an invasion is unclear), is everything that Resurgence is not. I don’t only mean this in terms of quality, although it is to be sure a superior movie in every way. I also mean this in how the film chooses to approach its subject. While Resurgence follows the typical Hollywood formula of casting the aliens as generic, faceless baddies who are defeated in the end through force and might, Arrival is a film that celebrates reason, thought and empathy. Rather than having the American military leading the charge and saving the day, the solution is instead found in science and communication and is implemented through the careful and challenging process of collaboration. This is a great film with a great message and I am so glad it came out this year.

When twelve extra-terrestrial spacecrafts appear all around Earth, Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), one of the Earth’s foremost experts in linguistics, is enlisted by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) to help the US military. Working with Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), a theoretical physicist, she must establish a system of communication with the aliens and find out who they are, where they come from, and why they are here. When they enter the craft they are greeted by two squid-like aliens whom they christen Abbott and Costello (whose most famous sketch is appropriately about a linguistic miscommunication). Banks discovers that the aliens have a written language in the form of circular symbols and uses them to establish a basic vocabulary. As she becomes more versed in the language Banks starts having vivid dreams, most of them about her daughter whose tragic death is a source of great pain and sorrow. As the perception of the alien threat grows and draws humanity closer to declaring an all-out war, Banks and her team must take a desperate chance in order to find the answers that they seek.

Arrival is a thinking man’s sci-fi that stimulates and astounds as it challenges its viewers with deep and thought-provoking questions. We are invited to consider the psychology of thought, reason and morality, the philosophy of faith, knowledge and meaning, and the very natures of time, language and the human mind. It approaches its story with the utmost sophistication as the characters set out to meet this ambiguous presence with logic and caution. While the apprehensive Agent Halpern (Michael Stuhlbarg) would prefer to know straight up who these aliens are and what they want, Banks explains that such questions are useless without an understanding of how these beings think. Do they have a concept of purpose and intent? Do they consider themselves as individuals or as a collective? Do they even understand what a question is? Such questions are paramount when the risk of even the slightest miscommunication could have disastrous global consequences.

In this role Adams continues to prove why she is one of the best actresses in Hollywood today. In Banks she conveys a quiet yet strong sense of fascination and determination that becomes more potent as her search for knowledge and understanding intensifies. The more she learns about the alien language, the more it affects her way of thinking and perception of reality. There is also an affective emotional core tying her to this task as her work evokes tragic memories of her daughter. Villeneuve does a particularly good job of representing the distortive state of Banks’ mind as her present, memories and dreams all seem to blend into one another. His use of CGI is modest, allowing the film to feel all the more authentic, and his handling of the suspense is expert (with one particularly explosive scene that no doubt would have impressed Hitchcock).

Arrival is a smart, layered and moving film with echoes of Contact and Close Encounters of the Third Kind that thrills, stimulates and inspires. It is a subdued and contemplative form of science-fiction of a calibre that we only get to see one or two times per year (Midnight Special is the other one). The moment when this film truly shines is in the climax following a revelation which turns our very perception of the plot upside down. This is a film that will certainly benefit from multiple viewings and I suspect it is one that will be studied by students of the social sciences as well as film students for a long time to come. Furthermore Arrival is a film that encapsulates the intrinsic values of knowledge, compassion, faith, cooperation and understanding, ideals that seem more distant with each passing day. It raises many challenging and important questions but does not try to answer them all because otherwise there’d be no room for contemplation. This film believes in humanity’s ability to change and adapt, something we can only do if we are willing to listen, consider, and be challenged. This is a great film that came out at a time when it was most needed.

★★★★★

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot

Director: Zack Snyder

Writers: Chris Terrio, David S. Goyer


I desperately wanted to love this film. I’ve been a fan of Batman and Superman since childhood and couldn’t wait to finally see them together. I went into this movie with great anticipation and when I finally saw the two go head to head against one another, it was an epic spectacle that was astonishing to behold. But it was done for the wrong reasons. Amazing as it was to finally see the Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel in the same movie and engaging each other in battle, some of the choices that were made in terms of story and character defy sense and reason. I don’t know if the fault belongs to Snyder for masterminding the whole thing or with the studio for their interference, but the result is a visually stunning yet fundamentally misguided mess of a movie.

In the aftermath of Metropolis’ destruction in Man of Steel, Superman (Henry Cavill) has become a controversial figure in the world. Half of the public view him as a saviour while the other half sees him as a monster. Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who witnessed Superman’s destructive abilities first-hand, believes Superman to be a threat to the planet and seeks to stop him as Batman. Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is also threatened by Superman and hatches a plan to assure his demise using the discoveries he has made from studying Zod’s corpse and his Kryptonian ship. A congressional hearing led by Senator Finch (Holly Hunter) meanwhile is held to determine whether Superman is indeed a threat to humanity and invites him to appear before the world to speak. Thus Superman must confront the responsibility he holds for his power and actions and must decide what kind of man and what kind of hero he wants to be.

When it was announced that the sequel to Man of Steel would introduce Batman into the DC universe by pitting him against Superman, I think that the excitement that arose was more than a reaction to the iconic status of the two characters. I think the reason that so many people were excited for this fight is because there is actually a valid ideological conflict to be had. Superman stands up for liberty and justice and believes in the power of hope to save people. Batman in contrast fights crime through fear and favours methods that are altogether more ruthless and brutal. Fans of the comics, the animated shows or of the previous movies featuring these heroes can understand and relate to both of their creeds which is why a clash between the two would allow for a complex and engaging dispute of epic proportions. Either the makers of Dawn of Justice did not understand this or the heart of this conflict simply got lost in the middle of all the many overlapping and convoluted stories that were crammed into this movie.

Maybe the bloated state of this movie is a reaction to the enormous success and widespread adoration of the Marvel franchise, as if DC thinks it needs to catch up as quickly as possible by doing in one movie what Marvel did in five. Even though the conflict between Batman and Superman had more than enough material to make a compelling, action-packed movie, Dawn of Justice also decided to include an inquiry into Superman’s actions, a mystery for Batman to solve, the appearance of Wonder Woman, a diabolical plot by Lex Luthor resulting in the creation of a villain the trailer saw fit to reveal, some set-up for the future Justice League movie, a number of dream sequences and an iconic storyline from the comics that occurs during the climax. While some of these stories do work, the simple reality is that the film as a whole suffers from a severe absence of focus and direction. The movie tries to juggle so many different elements that it never finds the time to adequately explore any of its characters’ motivations or the deeper meaning of its themes. Although we do get our Batman vs. Superman fight, and it is breathtaking, the investment just isn’t there.

Anyone who has seen 300 or Watchmen knows that Zack Snyder is a superb visual director. The action in Dawn of Justice is some of the best to ever involve these characters. Snyder however is not Joss Whedon and in this film he doesn’t seem to understand what it is audiences actually want from a Batman and Superman movie. He displays little understanding of the characters themselves or of how to use the story to serve them. He doesn’t seem to appreciate the virtue of establishing and developing this universe over successive chapters rather than trying to do it all in one go. Most infuriating of all was the ending where he saw fit to include an iconic event from the comics that was wholly and entirely unearned by the film’s story. As much as I admire his talents as a visual artist, I still cannot believe how profoundly misjudged some of his choices were.

I feel torn about criticising the movie in this way because there are genuinely amazing things in it. Batman himself is stupendous from the look to the action to Affleck’s performance. The inclusion of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman worked well and now has me very much excited for her solo movie next year. The visuals and action scenes were masterful with only some of the highlights being the vision of an apocalyptic future, the actual fight between Batman and Superman and also what is perhaps the single greatest Batman action scene ever put onto film. Even the climatic battle that has no business even being in this movie was impressive to watch, especially in the way it employed Wonder Woman. No other movie this year has managed to inspire such an ambivalent reaction out of me. Although I’m giving this movie three stars, I must stress that I do not think Dawn of Justice is in any way an average film. There are parts of this film that I utterly adore and there are parts that I bitterly hate. Even though I am disappointed that Dawn of Justice was not the movie I wanted it to be, I must admit that I was drawn in by the spectacle and that, all things considered, I am glad I saw it. I just hope that Snyder learns from the backlash when the time comes for The Justice League.

★★★