Fathers, Bubbles And Spaghetti Logic

“The Flash” (2023) – movie review
Today’s review is for the multiverse-hopping, comic-book adaptation / superhero action flick:  “The Flash”  (2023), starring Ezra Miller as Barry Allen (a forensic scientist turned speedster who breaks time to attempt to save his mother), Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (retired Batman from an alternate timeline), Sasha Calle as Kara Zor-El (a Kryptonian refugee held captive in Siberia), Michael Shannon as General Zod (returning villain with genocidal ambitions), Ron Livingston as Henry Allen (Barry’s wrongly imprisoned father), Maribel Verdú as Nora Allen (Barry’s mother whose death sets the plot in motion), Kiersey Clemons as Iris West (Barry’s journalist friend and potential love interest), and Antje Traue as Faora-Ul (Zod’s ruthless second-in-command).
Background:  I heard this was a terrible movie, so I was not particularly interested in getting it nearer it’s release date or its streaming date.  I’m not thrilled by the idea of a “multi-verse” in either the DCU or the MCEU, but I thought I’d give this a chance.  I watched it over a year ago streaming on cable, but never got around to reviewing it.  I wasn’t impressed on the first viewing, but the film dropped down to my price range several months ago, so I decided to pick it up and give it a second viewing.  Clarification:  I “like” the concept of a multi-verse.  I’m just not satisfied with any of the comic-book / superhero depictions of it (so far).
Plot Summary:  Barry Allen (Miller) discovers he can run fast enough to travel backwards through time.  Haunted by his mother’s murder and father’s wrongful conviction for the crime, he decides to change the past — saving his mom and creating a world where she lives.  But in doing so, he “fractures” the timeline and ends up in an alternate 2013 where “some” meta-humans don’t exist, and Earth faces annihilation from General Zod’s forces.  Barry meets his younger self (also played by Miller), who hasn’t yet gained his speed powers, and together they seek help from the only hero left — Keaton’s “Batman”.  They rescue Kara Zor-El (Calle), who’s been imprisoned by humans, hoping she can stop Zod.  But the battle goes sideways (multiple times).  Kara dies.  Batman dies.  Barry keeps trying to fix it — again and again — until he realizes some events are fixed points in time.  Ultimately, he restores the timeline, but not quite:  the film ends with a new Bruce Wayne (George Clooney) greeting Barry, implying he’s still in an altered reality.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  How about the filming / FX?  Are there any problems?  And, did I like the film?  Short answers:  Yes-ish;  mixed bag;  visually impressive to a fault;  multiverse logic fatigue;  mostly, yes.
Any good?  It’s ambitious.  It’s messy.  It’s emotionally resonant in parts and bloated in others (most others).  The “Flashpoint” story-line is inherently interesting (to me) — what would you sacrifice to save someone you love?  The film leans into that, but also tries to juggle fan service, cameos, franchise resets and to set up a sequel.  It doesn’t always succeed, but it’s not a total misfire either.
Acting:  Miller plays dual Barrys with surprising nuance — one mature (but geeky), one naïve / silly.  Keaton slips back into the cape like he never left (but he looks ancient, not “just” geriatric), delivering dry wit and weary gravitas.  Calle’s Supergirl is fierce but underused.  She’s the best part of the movie (IMHO).  Shannon’s Zod is… Zod.  He glowers.  He threatens.  He dies (sometimes).  Clemons is okay as Iris, but the romance subplot feels like an add-on.  Livingston and Verdú bring warmth to Barry’s family dynamic, establishing the film’s emotional core.
Filming / FX:  The time-travel sequences are poorly done in CGI but try to be visually inventive — Barry runs through a chrono-bubble that sometimes resembles a digital coliseum and other times a spherical Rubic’s Cube of memories.  The multiverse cameos (some controversial) are hit-or-miss – lacking explanation and (again) with poorly done CGI.  The final battle is chaotic, but well choreographed.  The FX are required, but most are poorly done in CGI.  Most cameos look more animation than live action.
Problems:  Let’s start with tone.  The film swings between heartfelt drama and borderline slapstick comedy and back again.  The younger Barry is borderline annoying until he matures.  The multiverse logic is convoluted — fixed points, alternate selves, collapsing timelines — it’s a lot and it doesn’t follow it’s own internal logic, whether realistic or not.  Some of the cameos are fun, but they made me pause to think (particularly Nicolas Cage), so they risk interrupting / overshadowing the story.  Also, the ending twist (Clooney) is clever but confusing — are we resetting the DCEU or just winking at it?  MY biggest issue with the movie is that EVERY one of Zod’s soldiers is a Kryptonian “superman”.  Not a single one of them would have been impacted, let alone injured by any weapon the human army threw at them – let alone Batman or the Flash.  And they would not have needed shuttles and attack ships to fly as that is a “given” power for all Kryptonians on Earth.  In other words, the big battle looked good, but was complete BS.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Despite its flaws, I found myself emotionally invested in the characters / story and intellectually interested in what CGI could make seem real.  Barry’s arc — learning to let go, to accept loss, to grow — is a compelling story.  The film doesn’t quite earn all its big swings, but it tries.  And sometimes, trying is enough.  I’ve not read much of “The Flash”  comics in many years (except one compendium book my son loaned me) and I never considered him an interesting superhero growing up, so I have no personal idea how close this story is to the comics.  My son says the movie is “crap” and misinterprets both the story and the character from the actual comics.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong.  “The Flash” is a film that tries to blend heart, humor, and high-speed heroics.  It’s not perfect, but it’s better than most of DC’s (and Marvel’s) recent outings.  If you’re a fan of time travel, alternate realities, or just want to see Keaton back in the cowl, it’s worth a watch.  Just don’t expect all the timelines to make sense — and try not to blink during the cameos.  I didn’t expect a full-on nostalgia trip with Keaton’s Batman, nor a surprisingly poignant meditation on grief, choice, and the consequences of rewriting history.
Final thoughts:  I am always interested in Hollywood’s interpretation of “timelines” and “multi-universes”.  I particularly liked this film’s depiction of them being like a plate of spaghetti.  My own thoughts lean more to a multi-verse of chaotic fractals where the image (timeline) keeps repeating regardless of whether you focus in or pan out on any particular multi-verse.  I don’t think this would make for a very good superhero movie, though.  LoL
.
Click here (5 September) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

NO! He IS Peter!

“The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968) — movie review
Today’s review is for the drama / religious-political-thriller film: “The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968), starring Anthony Quinn as Kiril Lakota (a Ukrainian archbishop unexpectedly elected Pope), Laurence Olivier as Piotr Ilyich Kamenev (a Soviet Premier and Kiril’s former interrogator), Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond (a controversial theologian), David Janssen as George Faber (an American journalist) and Barbara Jefford as Dr. Ruth Faber (his British wife).
Background:  This is my third review of this film on this blog.  The previous two were the single paragraph review type I favored in most of my first decade of blogging.  I have watched this film a half dozen times in the last two decades (DVD and streaming).  This, along with “The Song of Bernadette,” are two of a handful of “faith” touchstones I come back to when I feel spiritually low.  They “restore” me…  Not my “FAITH”;  my spirit.  This movie explores themes of faith, politics, personal conviction, the yearning for personal liberty to understand the world, institutional demands, and the burden of leadership in daily life as well as during a global crisis.  I am a fan of Quinn’s other work, too.  I am not a “fan” of Olivier.  He has a “presence” in his roles, but I struggle to think “that” role makes him for me.  If any, his role in this film is the closest.
Plot:  Set during the mid-1960s Cold War, the film opens with Bishop Kiril Lakota, a Ukrainian archbishop, being released from decades of imprisonment in a Siberian labor camp.  He’s unexpectedly made a Cardinal and then elevated to the papacy after the death of the sitting Pope — and becomes Pope Kiril I.  While adjusting to his new role, he’s faced first with trying to be a “simple” priest and counselor to individuals and then, after becoming Pope, with a mounting global crisis:  a famine threatens to push China and the world into nuclear conflict.
Kiril finds himself grappling with the immense burden and responsibilities of his new role while facing personal doubts and the complex demands of his conscience.  He attempts to mediate the international crisis, drawing upon his past experiences and unique perspective.  In one of two side threads, he must contend with Father David Telemond, a brilliant but controversial theologian whose writings are under scrutiny by the Holy Office.  Kiril identifies with Telemond’s intellectual struggles, but is bound by his duty (and his personal faith) to uphold Church doctrine which he believes in and has lived by.  We see Kiril must reconcile the personal faith of his friend (Telemond), with Church doctrine, Vatican and international diplomacy, and personal conviction in dealing with the suffering / dying and with a married couple having problems with their marriage.  In the climax, Kiril rejects traditional papal extravagance and instead makes a dramatic offer of economic aid to China, risking Vatican wealth and political backlash to broker peace.  The film culminates in Kiril’s bold and unconventional actions to address both the geopolitical crisis and the internal theological challenges, ultimately seeking to redefine the papacy’s role in a modern world.
So, is this movie any good?  How about the acting?  Filming / effects?  And, did I like it?  The short answers:  Yes;  very good – with Quinn outstanding;  good, but dated (Duh!!);  and, yes, I love this film.
Acting:  Anthony Quinn’s performance is multi-dimensioned — from quiet introspection to fiery conviction and he says as much with his facial expressions as he does with his actual lines.  Quinn delivers gravitas in every scene without posturing – portraying Kiril with profound humility, wisdom, and an underlying sense of weariness from his past internment, yet we see hints of his character’s strong moral compass and revolutionary spirit all through the body of the film.
Olivier too has “gravitas” and is believable as the formidable Soviet Premier, portraying political shrewdness and the complex personal history shared with Kiril (whom he tortured as a prisoner).  I am not absolutely certain, but I believe this was my first exposure to Olivier when I was young and I consider this role as his defining role for me.  Anyway, Olivier, though in a smaller role than Quinn, brings icy resolve as the Soviet Premier, and their quiet standoffs carry the weight of nations and of their personal history.
Similarly, Werner was an unknown actor to me.  His portrayal of Father David Telemond is solid.  He brings an intellectual fire matched against an at-the-surface vulnerability to the role of the theologian-scientist wrestling with his faith and intellect while suffering under the burden of poor health.  The Telemond character adds a personal depth for me.  He is wrestling with modern faith and science in ways that felt a surprisingly fresh discovery when I first viewed this film decades ago – and they remain that way to me.
Filming / FX:  This is a film of conversations — papal corridors, back-alley Doctor’s visits and diplomatic chambers, not action sequences.  In most of my reviews, I’d describe this as:  “Blah, blah, blah…”  In this case, scale is used as the trade-off for action.  The immense crowd at St. Peter’s Square, the frozen void of Siberia and the forced labor in the open-pit mine.  There are none of the special effects we’d find in most modern films.
Other Thoughts:  What makes this film powerful is how it contrasts the symbolic role of the Pope holding institutional wealth against a “modern” world of abject poverty and pervasive starvation.  Films rarely address theological depth or political nuance perfectly, but “The Shoes of the Fisherman” largely succeeds in engaging with complex ideas.  The film’s central “crisis” isn’t just about avoiding war;  it’s about the profound struggle of a leader trying to find his own faith-based path and implement radical solutions in an institution clinging to old paradigms.  The film skillfully blurs the line between spiritual and temporal leadership, leaving us to consider the true meaning of selfless individual service and the costs of institutional change.  What are we willing to sacrifice in exchange for service to others.
Problems:  IF this film has any problems, they are the intermingling of four stories – the man, the institution, the friend and the counselor – into one.  They end up being a Jenga tower under construction which ultimately results in a stable structure only when fully completed.  I didn’t have a problem with any of the threads, but I recognize individually they sometimes slowed the pace of the overall film.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended for viewers interested in applying the Roman Catholic faith to geopolitics, moral leadership, and character-driven drama.  It’s a thoughtful, and at times a bit slow-burn film that asks:  Can one man’s integrity (and faith) sway the arc of history?  Is this a “must-see” film?  For me it has been (several times).  Quinn’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the film’s exploration of its complex subjects pushes it beyond a simple fictional historical account.  As stated, I’m already a fan of Quinn.  Now, I’ll add Olivier and Werner to the list of actors I want to view more films with.
Title Note:  When Pope Lakota tells the other Vatican Cardinals of his plans, they object strongly and claim he is impulsively threatening the financial basis for the future of the Church.  Lakota says, if they are convinced he is wrong, he will abdicate.  In one of the powerful moments of the film one of the Cardinals who has previously doubted him, turns to the others and affirms – almost proclaiming – the title of this post.
.
Click here (14 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »