RSS

Movie Review: “The Flash”

Fifteen years after Iron Man first made its bow in theaters, it’s safe to say that the superhero genre has mostly hit creative stagnation. Small-scale stories have been replaced by CGI-drenched battlefields intended to set up another decade of movies (Quantumania, looking at you), and a fixation with “multiverse” storytelling—admittedly a comic book mainstay—has robbed individual installments of any serious stakes. (After all, what does it matter if someone dies? You can always get them back from some reality or other.)

Given all that, I was pretty cynical heading into The Flash, which was widely billed as a reshuffle of the narrative cards to allow for James Gunn’s DC reboot. I’m not a fan of Gunn’s aesthetic sensibility—if Zack Snyder’s style trended Nietzschean, Gunn’s wallows in the grotesque—and expected The Flash to be little more than a cynical cash grab that left a bad taste behind.

Imagine my surprise, then, when The Flash turned out to be one of the best summer blockbusters in years. Somehow, it manages to be funny, heartfelt, and even awe-inspiring—a throwback to a time before the need for “connected universes” swamped the need for moral and metaphysical drama.

Picking up sometime after the events of Justice League, this installment finds the eponymous hero, Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), struggling to balance superhero responsibilities with his quest to free his wrongfully convicted father from prison. With legal strategies running short, Barry hits on a dangerous idea: if he can step backwards in the flow of time far enough, he can change the past to stop his mother from being murdered and his father from being convicted in the first place. 

Of course, he tries precisely that, but the reality to which he returns is very different than he expected. There’s a younger version of himself (also Ezra Miller), who picks up super-speed powers of his own—but there’s also a strange dearth of the “metahumans” that populated Barry’s prior reality. Superman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and the rest are nowhere in sight.

Alas, those heroes will be sorely missed. As it happens, Barry has reentered the time-stream shortly before the events of Man of Steel, where Superman fought General Zod (Michael Shannon) to prevent the destruction of the planet. Zod promptly shows up, but in this reality there’s no Last Son of Krypton to oppose him: Barry has created a reality with supervillains, but no superheroes.

Fortunately, it’s not as if there’s no help to be found. Enter Michael Keaton, reprising his role as the 1990s-era Batman of Batman and Batman Returns. (Yes, it’s a nervy choice to revisit the character after Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman, but let that slide.) After “old Barry” and “young Barry” manage to rouse him from his Howard Hughes-style isolation, the aging Bruce Wayne reactivates the old Batcave and prepares for battle. There’s no Superman in this reality, but there is a Supergirl (an impressive Sasha Calle), and just maybe this makeshift team will be able to go toe-to-toe with Zod.

The Flash was helmed by Andy Muschietti, the director behind It and It: Chapter Two, and it features all of his cinematic strengths and none of Gunn’s distinctive weaknesses. There’s a real sense of wonder onscreen (particularly once Supergirl shows up) and sheer joie de vivre that seems to have been lacking in so many franchise outings lately. Yes, the CGI is iffy—especially in the film’s third act, when it becomes distractingly poor—but this is forgivable enough given that the characters and story, rather than the spectacle, are the real attraction here.

And the characters and story are good enough that, despite all the whiz-bang that fills the screen by the end, The Flash is genuinely poignant. When all’s said and done, this is a story about accepting reality in its tragedy and in its beauty—about saying goodbye to loved ones and moving forward. 

In the current superhero storytelling environment, this is radical stuff. At the risk of moderate spoilers, Muschietti’s take on the “multiverse” is starkly different from Marvel’s—so different, in fact, that I hesitate to even use the same word. This multiverse operates according to a logic that is precisely the opposite of Marvel’s: where the Marvelverse allows tampering with timelines to get better outcomes—such as reversing Thanos’s famous snap—in Muschietti’s multiverse, some events are fixed. The hand of fate—or, one could say equally accurately, the hand of Providence—lies over all timelines, ordaining some outcomes and foreclosing others. While the precise way in which they happen might change, the events themselves must be.

(I can’t resist pointing out that this is an Interesting and compelling way of depicting the distinction between primary and secondary causality: the arrangement of affairs to produce certain particular results doesn’t turn everyone into puppets or deprive them of their agency—their “gnomic wills,” in theological terms.)

The upshot of all this is that characters’ lives and decisions matter—they can be consonant with this overarching plan, or can attempt to circumvent it. And efforts towards the latter, as the film’s third act makes clear, can lead to real horror (the phrase “metaphysical corruption” is particularly apt in one character’s case). This is more inventive and thought-provoking stuff than we’ve gotten from the genre in years.

At the time of this writing, The Flash was headed for box-office bomb territory, likely failing to earn back its massive budget. And this is a tremendous shame. Frankly, after the last few years of big-budget movies, I’d started to wonder whether I’d lost my sense of wonder—if somewhere along the moviegoing way, the thrill of big-screen adventure had just worn off.  The Flash convinced me otherwise. 

By a considerable margin, this is the best superhero flick since Avengers: Endgame. Highly recommended.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 20, 2023 in Sci-Fi

 

Movie Review: “Disenchanted”

Out of all the comedy movies out there, 2007’s “Enchanted” remains one of my very favorites. I was originally buffaloed into watching it by a college friend over my protestations, but ended up loving it despite myself. To this day, it’s a surprisingly clever interrogation of the old Disney formula, coupled with a style of fish-out-of-water humor that’s been (deficiently) imitated by various Marvel/DC movies since then.

It also had a near-perfect ending. But the gears of capitalism churn on, and a follow-up/reboot/spinoff was inevitable. Enter “Disenchanted,” now streaming on Disney+.

Picking up roughly a decade after the original movie, “Disenchanted” opens with Andalasian expat Giselle (Amy Adams), her husband Robert (an underutilized Patrick Dempsey) and their teenage daughter Morgan (Gabriella Baldacchino) migrating from downtown New York to the nearby suburb of Monroeville. The transition is painful. Their new home is a fixer-upper, and Giselle’s efforts to bring fairytale sparkle to her stepdaughter’s school are thwarted by dictatorial PTA mom Malvina Monroe (Maya Rudolph). And things soon get worse. Following the birth of Giselle’s daughter Sofia, the royal Edward (James Marsden) and Nancy (Idina Menzel) pop in from their fairytale kingdom of Andalasia to bestow a special gift on the child: a magic wishing wand, boasting powers that can only be invoked by “a true daughter of Andalasia.”

Finding herself down in the dumps, Giselle takes up the wand and wishes to live a fairytale life—a fateful decision that transfigures Monroeville into a neo-medieval landscape. And the consequences aren’t just external. In the wake of her wish, Giselle soon finds herself slowly transforming—despite herself—into the “evil stepmother” of Cinderella and other such tales, a wicked oppressor of her charming stepdaughter. (And I do mean transforming; we’re talking about a magical force that seizes Giselle’s agency and makes her do bad things, rather than an actual character arc.)

I could go on, but the setup tells the whole story. Gone almost entirely is the charm of the 2007 original, which is rooted in the accurate insight that the “real world” is enlivened and redeemed by how one approaches it. Giselle’s utter lack of cynicism is the beating heart of that film: even the most mundane job can be conceived as a noble task, if one chooses to view it as such. Beyond that, though, “Enchanted” contends that the “real world,” in all its pain and tragedy, might in fact be preferable to a “fairytale” life where the rough edges are all sanded away. That’s why Giselle ultimately chooses to stay in New York—and intentionally or not, it’s a haunting thematic indictment of the “adult Disney fan” who refuses to grow up.

This is what makes it so bizarre that “Disenchanted” goes the direction it does. The whole point of the original film is Giselle’s rejection of the Andalasian fantasy and embrace of the real world’s bittersweet joys. In this sequel, she’s reduced to pining for her homeland—and then punished for that out-of-character decision by being stripped of her moral agency altogether.

A better and smarter film would’ve placed Morgan at its heart as the character who actually undergoes a moral journey: rebelling by using the wishing wand to transform her town, and ultimately finding herself in need of rescue by the wiser Giselle. For one thing, it’d be a clever inversion of the old Disney trope that parents and authority figures are always buzzkills. For another, it opens up the storytelling possibility that a “fairytale” world might not actually make selfish people morally better—that real-world vices might end up being ported over into fantasyland, with horrifying consequences. (Yes, Lev Grossman did it in “The Magicians,” but it deserves a wider audience.)

In any case, “Disenchanted” is representative of a larger Disney trend that’s worth exploring. I’m not the first to comment on this, but one of the most curious aspects of recent Disney productions is their discomfort with the idea of villainy as such. Onscreen, virtually no character anymore is allowed to be evil, in the classical way that Scar or Jafar or Claude Frollo was evil. Instead, interpersonal conflict mostly revolves around relational healing and the navigation of past trauma (“Moana,” “Encanto,” “Raya and the Last Dragon,” “Frozen II”) Hans from “Frozen” is about the only real “bad guy” left. What these new “villain” characters need isn’t defeat by the forces of good, but therapy.

Now, from a certain point of view, this can be interpreted as Disney just trying to tell more sophisticated character stories: after all, human beings contain multitudes. But I think the issue runs deeper than that. Specifically, it suggests a broader skittishness on Disney’s part towards traditional forms of storytelling.

No child ever mistook Ursula from “The Little Mermaid” or Gaston from “Beauty and the Beast” for a depiction of anyone in real life. Those villains are archetypes of evil—storytelling figures that represent vice and temptation, and whose defeat conveys the message that the darkness can be overcome through virtue. As a result, the old Disney stories aren’t really stories about interpersonal relationships; they’re stories about the human condition. And that’s why they’re so perennial, and why so many adults still love them.

Fascinatingly, at the same time that it’s neutering its baddies onscreen, the company is devoting vast resources to keeping its best-known traditional antagonists in the public eye—from revisionist live-action films (“Maleficent,” “Cruella”) to TV spinoffs (the rather charming “Descendants” franchise) and even book series. Audiences want traditional good-versus-evil showdowns, and real antagonists, even if they lack the vocabulary to demand them outright.

“Disenchanted” wraps itself around this same axle. The original film featured the wicked Narissa, who becomes a dragon and is shattered into a million crystal fragments at that movie’s climax—but here we get merely interpersonal spats and malign forces that are mostly just bad luck. Like so many other recent Disney productions, the film no longer understands the idea of villainy as such, but is still obsessed with imitating it in superficial ways. Weak stuff indeed.

In short, “Disenchanted” is a bad movie because, like so much of Disney’s recent output, it lacks moral coherence. I’m not saying every movie needs to push a “conservative” or “traditional” party line—“Frozen II” would’ve been a much better movie if the Kingdom of Arendelle had been wiped out in an anticolonialist tsunami, and I do mean that literally—but children’s films need to have real convictions and a clear vision of the good. That shouldn’t be too heavy a lift. Apparently for Disney these days, though, it is.

“Enchanted” didn’t need a sequel in the first place, and “Disenchanted” is decidedly not the one it deserved. Save your time.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 28, 2022 in Fantasy