I saw the Witcher and Dark Crystal (Tardy Shout-outs)

Sometimes I don't have the time to review movies or shows on the heels of their premieres. Too often they fall to the wayside as a consequence, even though I may appreciate them and wish to tell others about them. Anyway, I'd like to share my reflections on a couple such examples, which Netflix offered in 2019: both of which have since gained steady accolades among fantasy fans.  

"The Witcher" is a Polish/U.S.-produced, "medieval" adventure about nomadic magic, monsters and swordplay, led by Henry Cavill (the snowy-haired Gerald of Rivia), who's supported by Anya Chalota, Joey Batey and Freya Allison. (Cavill's staunch portrayal has proven influential enough to get him back in WB/DC's favor for Superman reprisals, if in fact more JL movies are to come.)

"The Witcher'"s journeys flow toward mercenary good, based on preluding, short stories from Andrzej Sopkowski's "The Last Wish" and "Sword of Destiny", which also prompted a video-game franchise.  

If one enjoys sagas with a backbone, "The Witcher" is worth pursuing. Its grit, vim and sardonic seasoning are calculated to stimulate. 

Next up is the "Dark Crystal" prequel, "Age of Resistance", which like the 1982 Jim Henson classic, incorporates unpretentious puppetry (or should that be muppetry?) in lieu of too-often-soulless CGI. 

The series is intricate and sophisticated (packed with Crystal, origin lore), though not devoid of humor and cuteness. On this basis, it's in deft tune with its theatrical foundation. Millennials probably won't fancy "Age of Resistance" since it sometimes leans toward the scary, but that's just cause for those-of-us-with-balls-attached to embrace it. 

Indeed, I recommend both programs, so if one's a Netflix subscriber, these are queued for immediate delving. If one isn't a subscriber, these should give one the ideal incentive to shell out and consume. 

CW's Superheroes/DC's Decline

As autumn beckons, my mind turns not only to crusty leaves, crisp air and pumpkins, but to a new batch of CW's DC/WB superhero shows. Alas, as was the case last year, my faith wanes.

The good vibes started to subside a few seasons back when "Supergirl" joined the CW camp. Contrary to the smooth way the show played on stodgy CBS, things got mighty unorthodox on what many presumed was a more fitting network. 

For starters, bad became good, and good became bad, without a smidgen of ironic justification. James Olsen took pride in slanting news reports; Supergirl gushed over a parallel-plane President, despite the woman's flagrant insincerity (why, oh why, couldn't Lynda Carter have won a more respectable part?); and well, you get the dreadful drift.

It didn't take long for "Supergirl'"s stain to infect the other shows, in particular "Legends of Tomorrow". Though the White Canary-led jaunt retained its "Doctor Who" ambiance, its reinterpreted (and therefore, inaccurate) historical staging became more common than sporadic. 

Crackpot history wasn't CW's only DC misstep. The shows' soap-opera trimmings tiered to a nauseating peak: "The Flash" took delight in our hero's sexual relationship with his "sister", and "Arrow'"s focus fell on sappy squabbles and strained relationships. When scripts did tap some needed virility, it was generally penitentiary-based, pushing most traces of time travel, alternate realities and the need to snuff out corruption and deceit to the back burner.   

Please don't misunderstand: I've no objections to planting plebeian seeds within a fantasy plot line, but dear Lord, it's got to be within reason. When episodes of "Supergirl" catered to dating pursuits and wedding bliss (no matter if the participants were "diverse", "straight" or you name it), I took issue. Leave that fluff stuff to "General Hospital" and "Love of Life", not comic-book adaptations where mad scientists, rampaging robots and verbose apes should occupy the adversarial spotlight.

Okay, perhaps there's still a chance that these disconcerting intersections will lose favor among the execs. "Black Lightning" looks like a great way to set things on course, but considering the other series' track records, how long before it also stumbles? The same might be said of Batwoman, Lois Lane and Dreamer's anticipated intros: sensible, maybe, but if their actions are gimmick-driven, cloudy or (like CW's infrequent-flying Kal-El) designed for shameful defeat, why the bloody hell bother?

Indeed, the current situation leaves DC's followers little reason to feel confident. WB's theatrical scene continues to be hit and miss, with matters now further complicated by Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill's departures. In addition, though the DC/WB's direct-to-disc, animated features have proven exemplary, they come way too few and far between. Then, there's the much hyped, DCEU subscription service, which promises to deliver new cartoon and live-action shows in the near future, but it'll cost $75 a year to test its uncertain waters. Ouch!

Despite these good and/or bad insinuations, it hurts to see DC's most prolific, filmic strand go the Disney/Lucasfilm route. Perhaps the reverberations from "Star Wars'" backlash will rattle CW's leadership enough to reinstate the programs' earlier formats, while WB gets its other houses in order. That's probably too much to ask at this far-gone point, but then if worse comes to worse, we still have Fox's "Gotham" and SyFy's "Krypton" to lean on, right? On the other hand, considering the troubling way things have been going, dare we be so certain?

I saw the Justice League...

Questions regarding "Justice League'"s critical outcome have been discussed, predicted and debated over the past few months. People have wondered if the film would be as polarizing as “Batman v Superman” or as charming as this summer’s leading blockbuster, “Wonder Woman?” Others have speculated on whether it would be dark and brooding in the Chris Nolan vein or light and/or soap-opera-ish like CW’s television shows. Directed by both Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon, “Justice League” turns out to be a union of nearly all these things and isn't in the least bit polarizing. Well, okay, that's just the sound of wishing thinking, but still...

When it comes to villainy, however, we're dealing with the straight-and-narrow again, thanks to Ciaran Hinds' chilling, Lucifer-like Steppenwolf (CGI-enhanced pursuer of world-conquering boxes), who intends (as if we couldn't guess) to dominate the world. We've witnessed his coming through Bruce Wayne's "Batman v Superman" premonitions, of course; and with this larger-than-life villain comes a horde of larger-than-live, locust-like demons. There are so many, in fact, that it would prove hard, if not impossible, for any superhero/metahuman alliance to overtake them; and yet our champions are ever determined to bring the invaders down. 

The cast is familiar and effective: Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman; Gal Gadot s Diana Prince/Wonder Woman; Erza Miller as Barry Allen/The Flash; Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry/Aquaman; Ray Fisher as Victor Stone/Cyborg; and (yep, here it comes!) Henry Cavill as Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. I don't believe I'm spoiling anything by acknowledging the Man of Steel's return. Warner Brothers hasn't in the least tried to conceal the Kryptonian's Christ-like return. It's more a matter of exactly how he re-enters that counts, but I won't spoil that juicy tidbit here. (BTW: a number of supporting characters also return: Amy Adams as Lois Lane; Jeremy Irons Alfred Pennyworth; Diane Lane as Martha Kent; and Joe Morton as Silas Stone. They're joined by new members J.K. Simmons as Jim Gordon; Billy Crudup as Henry Allen; and Amber Heard as Mera.)

At any rate, all of the film's predominating, saw-it-coming/old-turf stuff doesn't make or break the story one iota. You see, “Justice League” isn’t merely another superhero teaming, but rather the story of sought redemption, particularly on Wayne’s part, but also a story of guilt, again on Wayne’s part (and in a precise Judus-based way, I might add). The script, penned by Chris "Batman v Superman" Terrio and "Marvel Avenger'"s Whedon, spews an almost religious zeal in its hope that Superman will gain his predestined, second coming and from there, help the league save the world from Steppenwolf's explosive, demonic possession.

Beyond the Biblical allegory, the film stresses the importance of individuality coupled with partnership. Oh, yeah, folks, one can still shine as an individual and help a greater cause without slipping into some Nazi-ish, conformist shade of gray. (Sorry, snowflakes, but that’s just the truth of the matter, but then those of your myopic ilk aren’t apt to view “Justice League”, even though you damn well should.) 

With these elements acknowledged, “Justice League” is, above all, a fun film. It still may be dark in its heart, but on the whole, it reflects its character mix. Batman is anguished and brooding; Wonder Woman, warmly glowing; Flash, a spree of crimson glee; Cyborg, shiny yet gritty; Aquaman, redesigned for sure, but when he bursts from out of the sea, soothing and calm. The styles of the two directors (though more an accident than a get-go intent) lends wonderful variance to the adventure, with some parts in tune with “Batman v Superman” and others reflecting the breeziness of most Avengers movies.  

The wavering styles also act as (if I may be so flag-wavingly bold) a reflection of the United States. I realize that may strike some as corny, but U.S. inhabitants are, in fact, part of a big melting pot, or make that a great, experimental salad, wherein each morsel holds a different flavor, but under the blanketing dressing, each tastes equally good. And “Justice League (of America)”, for all of its insinuated patriotic and religious seasoning, is exceptionally delicious. 

On another level, “Justice League” echoes an older and more admirable form of storytelling. The holier-than-thou, “social justice” writers of current DC and Marvel will surely degrade the film, since they've already taken contemptuous pride in dismissing all the fine attributes that once made their companies so inspiring. 

On the other hand, some "fans" will simply reject "Justice League" without even seeing it, assuming it's hip and cool to do so. A number of folks (mostly adolescents) will be too timid to give it a shot. Others will view it, but in the aftermath claim it's either too dark or light. Personally, I see the film as striking a swell balance, but enjoyed the experience mainly because I became involved with its heartfelt, human concerns. (Danny Elfman's score is also a blessing, considering that he incorporates traces of his Burton/Batman theme throughout. Ah, nostalgia!)

So, say what you will about good ol' "Justice League". Even persuade others to avoid it, if you want. No matter the result, it's here to stay and who knows? Maybe, by golly, if those dandy, post-credits sequences are any indication of the shape of things to come, it'll spawn a few sequels. Now, wouldn't that be somethin' to discuss, predict and debate? 

I saw Batman and Superman Fight to Unite!!!

Frank Miller claims there’s no way Batman and Superman would ever like each other. Heck, because they come from different crime-fighting vantages, maybe he’s got a point. However, I’ve seen the two team countless times over the decades among various sources, and I’ve come to accept their allegiance as one of the “World’s Finest”. 

With that said, seeing these two at odds can be disconcerting and intense (as Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" demonstrates), and yes, the conflict can be even acceptable, if there's a positive, logical resolution to it. 

That resolution does, in fact, occur in Zack Synder’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”, which for all its contentious pre-imagery, turns into (SPOILER!!!) a touching buddy movie, divided into three, justice-founding parts, thanks to the scripting skills of David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio.

The initial phase is the set-up: Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) plots to foil Superman (or any available representation of good, for that matter), while Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) and Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) increase their cynicism toward each other: each perceiving the other as reckless extremists. They should know better than to indulge in such petty, personal tactics, but then so should the general public, a portion of which is quick to deride both heroes, despite the fact that they go to great lengths to help and protect people, and yes, sometimes leave destruction in their paths, but with the assurance that the terrorists will always meet defeat.

The collateral damage, however, irks Senator Finch (Holly Hunter), and she implements a crusade and hearing on the matter, focusing her wrath on Superman, regardless that General Zod (Michael Shaunnesey) would have destroyed the world as we know it without Kal-El's intervention. She also blames Superman for deaths caused by a dictator named Anatoli Knyzaev (Callen Mulvey), with whom Luthor has ties. Indeed, why condemn the obvious cretins when an honorable extra-terrestrial is ripe for the picking? 

In a roundabout link to the senator's view, we come to realize that the sectors over which Batman and Superman preside, whether Gotham, Metropolis or beyond, are rough and mean, itching for hope, but just as inclined to celebrate an ugly underbelly and scoot it to the highest heights of praise. It’s an upside-down world in need of revelation, of an essential second wind. Batman and Superman are the potential beacons of inspiration who can crush the dire misconceptions, but Luthor's behind-the-scenes manipulations intend dull the luster of their stellar deeds, further bolstering Batman's existing wariness of Superman and indirectly churning controversy where there would be otherwise none. But fear not. Good has a way of evening out and rising above the scum. 

To attain this "rise", our duo must first take the bait and battle, though the primary brawl results from Luthor kidnapping Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and coercing the Man of Steel to fly forth and kill the Dark Knight in exchange for his mother's life. This scenario constitutes a large part of the film's second phase: an energetic, though unsettling feast for the senses, with one mighty entity gaining the upper hand over the other and back again. Prior to such, Alfred Pennyworth (Jeremy Irons), Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) interact with their champions throughout the mounting conflict, offering encouragement and disdain, as does Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), albeit initially on surreptitious terms and essentially with Wayne. 

Though tensions run high, Batman and Superman do eventually acknowledge Luthor's ploy. When the arch criminal realizes they're wise to him, he triggers his backup plan--along with the film's powerful third act--using Zod's extracted DNA to hatch an even greater “devil”: the ferocious, mutating Doomsday.

The creature exceeds Zod’s strength and destruction, and Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman must team to stop the mad monster. (Sorry folks, contrary to conjecture and hope, Bizarro and Riddler don't enter this chapter, but the Hulk-proportioned Doomsday is more than enough mega-villain to cover their absence.)

Visually, the film mirrors Snyder's stylish "Watchmen", with scenes tinted in hazy pigments, which complement its lingering sense of doom. The exchange of heroes is also similar to "Watchmen", with various shades of gray surfacing among the principles, but with a clear-cut distinction surfacing as to what constitutes good and bad; thus establishing a staunch Steve Ditko philosophy that extends beyond the film's climax.  

Ben Affleck, regardless of his controversial casting, is quite good as Wayne/Batman, and what a commendable accomplishment coming off the heels of Christian Bale's sterling portrayal. He remains credible throughout, his mood swings identifiable as he presses on for justice. Affleck's presence is also old-school: a throwback to the past when actors like Buster Crabbe played a variety of heroes. Previously, Affleck portrayed Matt Murdock/Daredevil, as well as Superman, in an indirect way, in the George Reeves speculative bio-pic, "Hollywoodland", in which Diane Lane also starred.

The same crossover dynamics can be attributed to Cavill, who's acted in the mythological epic, "Immortals", as well as portraying Napoleon Solo in the "Man from U.N.C.L.E." remake. He also does an impressive job in matching Affleck's unflinching stance, making his second film portrayal of the Man of Steel much edgier. This troubled Superman works seamlessly into the film's early, despairing moments. Cavill also draws us deeper into Superman's frustration when people reject his gallantry, and through his Kent persona, that woe turns into an empathetic, slow burn. 

Gadot nicely completes the trio: an exotic, old-world Amazon, whose shrewd charms shine through her unassuming Diana Prince guise. Her sparkling eyes are always peeled for clues and ways to assist her predestined super friends. Above all, she believes in doing the right thing and is therefore as honorable an emblem as Batman and Superman, and one can therefore assume that she'd also be susceptible to the same illogical derision they face, if not for the fact that she's remained under the radar for a century. 

Eisenberg, on the other hand, is the personification of cunning evil, his wry, comedic tone comparable to Sherman Howard's much underrated Luthor in the much underrated "Superboy" series: fun, yes, but as Lois Lane astutely acknowledges, "psychotic". One can't help but dislike the son of a gun, but he also gains one's contemptuous respect, which should placate those who may have dismissed Eisenberg's persona as irreverent, based on his trailer footage. 

These character-driven additives stir a mighty big powder keg of suspense, all augmented by Hans Zimmer pulse-pounding score: a well crafted, emotional formula, which inspires us to question our current views of good and bad and then tears them down, only to refashion them into a valuable lesson. No matter how one may try to justify the bad or defame the good, an indisputable distinction between the two will always surface. There's no amount of in-fighting or invading villainy that can control the circumstances long enough to prove such wrong: no jealous Luthor or all-mighty Doomsday who can climb to the top and rule, as long as individuals focus on what's right and ensure that justice prevails. 

Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, as well as the other members of the growing Justice League--Jason "Conan/Game of Thrones" Mamoa's Aquaman; Erza Miller's Flash; and Ray Fisher's Cyborg are insinuated personas in this, too--may lack universal support at the start, but by the picture's tear-jerking cliffhanger, they--and we--will know which side to choose. 

Without question, this "World's Finest" adventure may be excessively hard-hitting, even shamelessly rough around the edges, and the conflict between the Dark Knight and Man of Steel is never all that convincing, but at least the story forces us to choose an ideological platform. That, in its own right, should fuel discussion among fans and the general public for quite some time, or at least until the next cinematic chapter hits theaters.

I saw U.N.C.L.E. (Reborn)...

In the mid-sixties there was no spy phenomenon as big as "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.", except of course, James Bond and let's not forget "The Avengers" (John Steed/Emma Peel, that is). "U.N.C.L.E.", however, went through the roof during its early phases, making Robert Vaughn and David McCallum household names, as well as their characters, Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin pop-cultural icons. Incidentally, though the series was developed by the innovative Sam Rolfe, it was conceptually influenced by Bond's daddy, Ian Fleming.

U.N.C.L.E., which stands for United Network Command for Law and Enforcement,  took a stand against the chaotic command of T.H.R.U.S.H.: Tech Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity (how's that for a mouthful?). U.N.C.L.E. was a combined agency effort: though Solo was American bred, Kuryakin was KGB connected. Kuryakin was still faithful to Solo, who like Bond, was every inch the suave, lady's man. Their boss (i.e., their version of "M"), was Alexander Waverly, portrayed by renown character-actor Leo G. Carroll: the series' sentimental, supporting lead. 

"U.N.C.L.E." spawned several films (episodes shown theatrically in color during a time when black-and-white television was the norm, with added, sensual footage not seen on the home screen). The films were profitable worldwide, and though "Return of the Man from Uncle" premiered as a high-profile movie-of-the-week in '83, it's odd that a theatrical relaunch of the franchise has taken this long. 

Nevertheless, the "U.N.C.L.E" revival has surfaced: big-budgeted and directed by hipster Guy Ritchie, who co-scripted with Lionel Wigram. It stars Henry Cavill as Solo and Armie Hammer as Kuryakin: yep, Superman and the Lone Ranger together at last (well, sorta). Affable Hugh Grant portrays Waverly, with Jared Harris on hand as C.I.A. agent Sanders, who  keeps us properly cautious in the good ol' fashioned Cold War way. 

Joining the boys is the lovely, mechanically inclined East German, Gaby Teller (Alicia "Ex Machina" Vikander). She's not in the least timid about throwing herself into the action and remains a constant sight-for-sore-eyes: for all intents and purposes, this story's "Girl From U.N.C.L.E.".

The sinister lead is the cool Victoria Vinciguerra (Elizabeth Debicki), who's as fiendish as she is statuesque: a veritable Satan cloaked. Her sadistic motivation is pure T.H.R.U.SH., with a desire to tear down the world via nuclear destruction (and with an connection to Teller's physicist dad, no less). In this regard, she's much like any aspiring terrorist (only lots prettier) and to Solo, far more treacherous than even the most skilled KGB agent could be. After all, Kuryakin is on his side (albeit reluctantly), and together our heroes face a series of outlandish obstacles to defeat their foe.

The circumstances churn lots of comical bickering and sincere camaraderie, making this U.N.C.L.E. more of a buddy movie than a typical, spy/espionage flick. Then again, the principles were always tight-nit on the series, and considering the third season's shameless levity, the film's shenanigans may not be so out of place. 

In other ways, Ritchie's version mirrors his revisionist Sherlock Holmes adventures: a sea-sawing of high-flying danger and unabashed superheroics. Thank goodness the flow never feels awkward, perhaps because its underlying unevenness is charged by movie-serial thrills, quick wit and exotic visuals. Let's face it: for this sort of adventure, that's essentially all one needs.

Also to the remake's benefit, it's an unapologetic nostalgic piece, with a Daniel Pemberton throwback score, which often invokes Ennio Morricone, constantly accompanied by cool cars and colorful clothing. The overall package is an indisputable gift to older fans, but hopefully the film will inspire youngsters to seek out the original, so they might see what all the hub-bub was (and still is) about. Indeed, what was old is new again, and in either case, it's all good fun.