Simon Dillon finds the film an indifferent experience.
A very troubled production history has beleaguered DC's Justice League film. It had already been plagued by reshoots when personal tragedy meant director Zack Snyder had to be replaced by Joss Whedon. Another round of rewriting and reshoots ensued and, quite frankly, the resultant film is a mess.
The big problem isn't so much the casting. After all, Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is the finest superhero casting choice this side of Christopher Reeve's Superman, and her solo film from earlier this year was a blast. But here she is hamstrung by a deeply uninvolving narrative. Ben Affleck's older, more jaded Batman is also less impressive, and most of the time simply reacts to special effects.
Elsewhere Ezra Miller crops up as Barry Allen/The Flash. His turn is amusing, but I prefer Grant Gustin from the current TV series. There's also Ray Fisher as Victor Stone/Cyborg, a character with a sorely underwritten backstory. Jason Momoa's Arthur Curry/Aquaman is equally underwritten, and as for the villainous Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), he's an utterly one-dimensional bore at the centre of yet another thingy-of-ultimate-power-that-will-destroy-the-world plot. Not even the quips of Alfred (Jeremy Irons) make much of an impact. Think Avengers, but far less fun.
It's really, really hard to care about any of the characters, because they spend the entire film swamped in ludicrous, weightless visual effects. There is no sense of real jeopardy, and the utterly inevitable return of one key character following the events of the equally dull Batman v Superman looms heavily over proceedings in a get-on-with-it sort of way.
To be fair, I did rather like Danny Elfman's music score, especially when he quoted his own Batman theme from the Tim Burton movies, and John Williams's iconic Superman theme. However, such incidental pleasures aside, Justice League really is, at best, a deeply indifferent experience. Superhero fans or younger viewers will probably derive some enjoyment from it, but wider audiences would be better off steering clear.
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date.
Yes, the problem is in the casting too. Especially, Affleck is an awful Batman - not to mention, the way he covered Weinstein's rapes and being an harasser himself; he is wooden in the role and always with the same bored expression. So why bothering to pay to see him ruining Batman?