Grotesquely Bad Faith: Why the Flash Deserved to Flop

 I generally don't cheer when a movie fails. I've given bad reviews to movies I don't like, regardless of their success or failure, but I don't generally celebrate a movie flopping. 

I will make an exception for The Flash, though, even though I haven't seen it, because more than anything in recent memory, it illustrates Hollywood's unparalleled hubris when it comes to making movies. 

Well before The Flash began principal photography, Ezra Miller was caught on video choking a woman in Iceland in April 2020. I found this news story such an oddity when it first broke, but the world was in lockdown then and there were other things to worry about, so I forgot about it.   Warner Brothers was fully aware of this and yet pushed through with Miller, shooting their blighted movie a year later, in April of 2021.  Incidentally, around the same time, they fired Johnny Depp from another movie because of his legal troubles (that he eventually overcame), but more on that later. 

When Warner Brothers finally dropped a trailer for The Flash in early 2022, I suddenly found myself remembering that April 2020 news report and asking, "whatever came of that?" I even posted a vlog entry about it on my now dormant YouTube channel. The story had been quite effectively buried; I couldn't find anything more substantial about it than people sharing opinions on message boards.  Not a lot of people watched my video, but some of the few who did reacted dismissively, saying that I was making a big deal out of nothing, with at least one commenter saying "dude, it was a joke" with no real evidence to back up this assertion.  I wanted to make it a jumping off point for discussing how hypocritically selective Hollywood's cancel culture is, considering what had happened to Johnny Depp, but as a talking point it kind of went nowhere.

It's pretty common knowledge what happened after that; Miller's legal troubles came to light, one after the other, Warner Brothers embarked on a bizarre marketing campaign that excluded Miller, but included random celebrities like Tom Cruise and Stephen King, and the film went on to flop in the most spectacular fashion imaginable, with its second weekend box-office drop being the worst in the history of the now doomed DC Extended Universe. 

I'd like to reiterate: Warner Brothers had a pretty good hint of the s**tstorm to come when Miller choked that woman in Iceland a full year before a single frame of The Flash had even been shot. With shooting halted by the COVID-19 pandemic, they had a full year to recalibrate, including the opportunity to recast the role with someone who wouldn't have been a lightning rod for controversy, like Grant Gustin for example. For reasons only they know, though, they thought they could magically make their problems go away by pretending Miller's shenanigans never happened. 

It is debatable whether or not Miller's legal problems were what effectively kneecapped The Flash's box-office prospects, but what I respectfully submit is not up for debate is that this was entirely and completely avoidable. Warner Brothers could have fired Miller the same way they fired Johnny Depp, but they chose not to, and I wonder if we'll ever find out why.  Whatever they would have lost in buying out Miller's contract, assuming they even had to, could not possibly compare to the tens--possibly hundreds--of millions they are now destined to lose on this movie.  I find myself cringing at the arrogance of the Warner Brothers execs who greenlit this movie thinking that what was happening in the real world would not ultimately affect their bottom line. It's fitting that their heads rolled long before this movie was crapped into theaters, though part of me wishes they'd been around to reap the fruits of their hubris. 

Warner Brothers' rivals over at Disney/Marvel would do well to pay attention, given that two of their own stars are now facing legal troubles of their own. Now, while admittedly Jonathan Majors and Tenoch Huerta may triumph over their legal troubles as Johnny Depp did, Disney should, at the very least, tread carefully.

SPOILER DISCUSSION on Across the Spider-Verse

 Again, HEAVY SPOILERS for Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.  It admittedly seems silly to still be putting spoiler warnings for a movie that has already been in theaters for around a month, but I want to make absolutely sure nobody stumbles onto this post by mistake. 

One of the greatest virtues of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is, ironically enough, one of its greatest vices as well. It deconstructs the notion of what defines Spider-Man by challenging one of the very central pillars of the Spider-Man story: tragedy.

Miles Morales, the central character of Across the Spider Verse and Gwen Stacy, who is arguably his co-lead in this film, have both experienced their fair share of life-defining tragedies.  Miles' uncle Aaron who moonlighted as the Prowler, died at the hands of the Kingpin, while Gwen inadvertently killed her best friend, Peter Parker, who fought her to the death as the Lizard. 

According to the Spider Society led by Spider-Man 2099, however, this isn't enough; just as Peter Parker, in his many iterations across the multi...err...Spider-verse, has had to suffer the death of Captain George Stacy, so must Miles suffer the death of his police captain father (as he did, incidentally, in the 2018 Playstation 4 game Spider-Man). So committed, in fact, is the Spider Society to bringing about this "canon event" as they call it, that they imprison Miles to make sure he cannot prevent it from happening.

Now, this was a real "wait, what?" moment for me and not for the reasons that I think the filmmakers may have intended it to be.

The idea of imprisoning someone who is out to save his father's life is, to the best of my knowledge as a regular Spider-Man reader for nearly forty years, not something any Peter Parker would agree to, let alone a multitude of them.  This is NOT the same thing as Peter Porker telling Miles he can't save everyone in the first film after his uncle's death at Kingpin's hands, nor is it the same thing as Peter Parker of the PS4 game choosing to save New York with the cure for the city wide pandemic, even if it means that Aunt May dies from the disease in the process. This is hordes of different versions of Peter Parker, agreeing that a precognitive process that is, at best, questionable, should take precedence over the impulse to help people, which is what Spider-Man does. The film is asking us to believe that Peter Parker, or worse, MANY Peter Parkers, would agree to let people die and would even IMPRISON someone out to prevent it.

Suddenly, the Spider Society doesn't feel like a realm full of Spider-Mans nearly as much as it does a realm full of Spider-Man editors, those eternally anonymous, utterly insufferable bogeymen who have, for decades, foisted narrative abominations on hapless readers like "Sins Past," "One More Day," and most recently, "What Did Peter Do?"  These people are the real reason why Peter Parker cannot hold down a regular job, unlike, say Clark Kent, or keep a stable relationship, unlike, say Reed Richards; because his life, like that of an eternal adolescent, has to remain mired in tragedy, trauma and personal setbacks. Peter has actually obtained a graduate degree throughout his sixty years of existence in publication, but depending on which branch of editorial you ask, some would say he hasn't even graduated from college.

Miles is no exception to Marvel's addiction to tragedy; in the early, Ultimate Universe iteration of the book, his mother Rio died from a gunshot wound, which actually caused Miles to quit being Spider-Man. Marvel walked the death back when they transplanted him from the Ultimate to the mainstream 616 universe, but elsewhere, Miles has seen his dad die (the PS4) game, or his uncle (Into the Spider-Verse).

I appreciate the fact that this movie pushes back against that concept and its proponents, and even ends on a cliffhanger that strongly suggests that for Miles to lose his dad would only push him into villainy, contrary to the Spider Society's thesis that he needs the tragedy to become a fully-realized hero.  It's something that needs to be said, after all. There is far more to being Spider-Man than just reacting to personal tragedy.  

My problem is that in trying to make this point, the movie dehumanizes its army of Spider-Men into mindless automatons ready to do Spider-Man 2099's bidding, a whole bunch of sheep who have bought wholesale into this concept of "the canon" without any semblance of critical thinking, which seems problematic when one considers that most incarnations of Spider-Man are supposed to have, as their alter-egos, geniuses. 

I enjoyed the movie, make no mistake, but in trying to make a broader point I feel it undermined its narrative ever so slightly. I don't know if anyone else shares my opinion, but I stand by it just the same. 

Defining Spider-Man: A Review of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

 directed by Kemp Powers, Joaquim dos Santos and Justin K. Thompson

written by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller and Dave Callaham

This review, like my viewing of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, is a bit of overdue, in part due to my soon-to-be-ex internet service provider, and in part because I actually struggled a little with what I wanted to say about this movie, which I honestly found brilliant but a significant part of which I actually found problematic. I won't be able to discuss that without spoiling plot points, so I'll keep my review short and post the usual spoiler-review follow-up.

In Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, which takes place a little over a year after the events of the first film, Into the Spider-Verse, we find Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) adjusting to his life as both Spider-Man and a high school student, when he encounters a new foe, the Spot (Jason Schwartzman) a former scientist who was apparently transformed into a living portal gun by the events of the last film, and who has since turned to a life of crime. Because of the Spot's ability to create portals into other dimensions, he has also come up on the radar of Gwen Stacy, aka Ghost Spider (Hailee Steinfeld) who, in the beginning of the film, joins up with a society of Spider-Men from multiple realities, led by Miguel O'Hara aka Spider-Man 2099 (Oscar Isaac).  She tracks the Spot back to Miles' home universe and cannot resist the urge to meet up with Miles, even as she tries, and fails to catch her quarry.  Miles, who has missed Gwen and his other Spider-friends terribly since the end of the last film, follows Gwen back to the Spider Society's massive headquarters and even accompanies them on their mission to capture the Spot.  When Miles does something that apparently violates one of the central tenets of the Spider Society, things degenerate fast. Will Miles be able to get home in time to stop the Spot from carrying out his nefarious plan?

The film is superbly made and is a visual masterpiece. After changing the game with the first movie, it was hard to imagine how Sony would be able to top themselves, but they managed to just the same, and everyone involved basically brought their A-game, from the directors and animators, to the voice actors like Moore, Steinfeld, and Isaac, to composer Daniel Pemberton. The artistry on display here is simply second to none. It's not just like watching a comic book come to life; this basically feels like an entire art gallery.

That said, well, there was a story beat that I found out of place, but I dare not discuss it lest I spoil several key plot points. It should be said, though that even in the face of this problem I have with the story, I'm only docking the movie one point. It's simply that good.   

9/10 

Bigger and Better: A Review of Extraction 2

 directed by Sam Hargrave

written by Joe Russo

I'll be honest; I thought so little of the first Extraction film that I didn't bother to watch it until nearly a year after its release, content to watch it on my phone while waiting for my wife.  I had no interest in most of Netflix's movies, finding them to be generic, forgettable affairs reminiscent of the straight-to-cable movies of old.  I ended up enjoying it way more than I thought I would, so much so that when the sequel, Extraction 2 dropped last Friday, I made sure to catch it on the biggest screen I had access to, so I plopped in front of my modestly-sized TV and tuned in. 

At the end of the first movie, mercenary/exfiltration expert Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) was shot in the neck and fell off a bridge in India, and as a result, he spends much of the beginning of this movie being nursed back to health by his colleagues Nik (Golshifteh Farahani) and her brother Yaz (Adam Bessa). He is then apparently retired and living in a cabin in Austria when he is approached by a mysterious man (Idris Elba) who has a job for him: exfiltrate the wife of a vicious Georgian crime lord (Tornike Bziava) and her kids from the prison in which he has forced them to live alongside him as he serves his prison sentence.  It's a bit personal for him, as well; the wife Ketevan (Tinitin Dalakishvili) is the sister of Rake's ex-wife Mia (Olga Kurylenko).  What is supposed to be a surgical exfiltration gets extremely violent, and as result, Tyler and his team have the crime lord's entire gang, led by his vengeful brother (Tornike Gogrichiani) hot on their heels as they attempt to flee the country with Ketevan and her kids Sandro (Andro Japaridze) and Nina (Miriam and Marta Kovziashvili).  Will they make it out? 

As an action movie, this film ticks all the boxes for me: just enough story to keep everything that happens coherent, actors with strong screen presence, and tightly-choreographed and shot action sequences with striking visuals and a propulsive soundtrack. This has all the grit of the best movies from the John Wick franchise and, if I'm honest, never feels repetitive the way some films from that franchise often did. Sure, the plot barely holds the whole thing together and would probably not stand up to anything even resembling scrutiny, but director Sam Hargrave, his cast and crew keep things moving along so briskly that it isn't worth taking the time to wonder if things make sense. It's just a rip-roaring, good time in much the same way the first one was, only this time the storytelling feels even tighter. 

Outside of his tenure as Marvel Studios' Thor movies there is not a whole lot that I have liked Australian actor Chris Hemsworth in, but at least that list has grown. I thought he was great as James Hunt in Ron Howards' criminally-underappreciated Formula One film Rush, and now, well, I think he's great here. I also especially liked Golshifteh Farahani's Niki, a hard-boiled, ass kicking woman that puts to shame a great majority of the so-called "strong female characters" infesting too many movies these days.  There's not much to say about the cookie-cutter bad guys, but the hell they put our heroes through made for some incredibly engaging viewing. 

My only real gripe with this movie, if I'm perfectly honest, has little to do with its craft and everything to do with Netflix's insistence to keep a film like this, which would be perfectly at home on the big screen making big money, away from movie theaters. It is honestly frustrating to see a wide-screen adventure like this confined to a platform which quite frankly diminishes the viewer's experience, and yes, I have to take that against the filmmakers who agreed to make this movie under those conditions.

It seems that a third installment of this franchise has already been greenlit, and I, for one, would honestly love to see it up on a movie screen.  

8/10