MovieChat Forums > Justice League (2017) Discussion > Still a very enjoyable film

Still a very enjoyable film

posted 6 years ago by Metallex (9)
6 replies | jump to latest

Is it evident it's a Frankenstein film? True.

Seems a lot of good material from the first director was out of the final cut? True.

Soundtrack is soul-less and pretty worse than previous DCEU films? True.

But still, this film has a lot to offer: A lighter tone that plays (a maybe unvoluntary) tribute to the SuperFriends cartoons; A friendly chemistry among the characters in opposite to MArvel's Avengres' passive agresive preuso-antagonism between Marvel's heroes; A Batman who can be a "good attitude" leader without being cheesy as Clooney's and too distant like most of its incarnations; A Superman who can prove he's the hero we need and can relax and smile instead of feeling bad for many reasons at once.

Maybe not the League we deserved. Maybe worse than it was meant. Maybe not the best Justice League we could expect. Maybe not as narratively complex it should have been. Maybe not the success many people expected.

But still, a very nice super-hero watch!

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

No.

[–] Metallex (9) 6 years ago

Yes.

But we could be this way all day long, it's a matter of opinion. In terms of arts and taste, it's always subjective! :)

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

No.

It was poorly reviewed, underperformed financially and the studio has said no sequel is forthcoming.

Those are facts.

Nobody is stopping you from enjoying a bad film, however.

[–] Metallex (9) 6 years ago

Many good movies had poor reviews. Plus, it had also good ones. It just crashed financially because it was very expensive, because in terms of basic numbers, 660Millions is a very good box office (do you catch the point of view element?)

The facts are that it underperformed at the box office (again, just considering its cost), but the quality rating is, well, not objective, it depends on the taste element, that's why artistically you can find several different or even opposite opinions, and all of them are usually valid, and it changes with time, see Indy 4's RT score, and you'll find a big dicotomy between ones and others. Why? Because it's not science, there are no absolute answers for artistic stuff, it's a matter of taste.

[–] Burk48917 (11542) 6 years ago

We rate, review, and award art all of the time. There are tangible things can be criticized and praised, not every aspect of art is purely opinion. Someone's ability to enjoy art despite flaws is definitely subjective, but I don't agree with the defense of bad movies by saying it's all a matter of taste.

[–] Metallex (9) 6 years ago

the very quality rating of a good movie/bad movie is essentially subjective. Blade Runner had once very poor reviews and was considered a bad film, and look at it today. Van Gogh himself was considered a talent-less artist, and look at his art is considered now. So yes, the quality rating of an artistic product is essentially subjective. Objectivity can't be applied in stuff like arts, because it basically stimulates personal, spiritual, and taste values, not absolute ones.

Of course, this film is not a relevant artistic product, don't get me wrong, I'm not putting it at Van Gogh's or Blade Runner's level, but it was treated as a terrible mess, mainly because expectations and other stuff you can compare it with, but it's not that mess, it's pretty much an enjoyable film that reached much lower than it should, both artistically and financially. A mess could be Catwoman, which not only didn't get as much audience and attention as JL, but faded to nothing months after it premiered, and today almost nobody remembers it.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't say it's a f**king mess, just saying that opinion is as valuable as saying it's a nice film, and no matter if a majority supports one opinion or the other, because, well majorities... A majority voted for Brexit, a majority chose Trump as president, a majority of critics said once Blade Runner was rubich, or in the 30's, a majority decided a guy named Hitler should be Germany's chancelour.