Forget Steppenwolf; the greatest threat to Warner Bros’ Justice League might end up being movie critics. With the first team-up of DC’s self-proclaimed World’s Greatest Superheroes just days away from release, the reviews are in, and to say they’re mixed would be an understatement. The film currently sits at 43 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.
Certainly The Hollywood Reporter‘s own Todd McCarthy was not a fan, writing that “the virtually humor-free script by Chris Terrio and Joss Whedon (who was brought on to complete directing duties after Zack Snyder had to leave for family reasons) less resembles deft narrative scene-setting than it does the work of a bored casino dealer rotely distributing cards around a table.” The movie, he complains, is so un-involving that “you get the feeling it was a chore to make, so it’s a chore to sit through, too.”
Similarly, Richard Lawson from Vanity Fair notes, “If this was the best DC could do in synthesizing all their lead characters together into one ensemble spectacular, after a half-decade of planning, that’s pretty damning. Justice League is such a misguided mess — often feeling entirely unguided — that you want to intervene, softly saying, ‘Stop, stop, you don’t have to do this, stop.’” He continues, “There is no real vision; no idea what the tone of these movies should be; no compelling or even coherent narrative through-line; no feel, or regard, for characterization. I know there’s another comic-book company doing this across town, and it seems to be working out well for them, but if you have no clear sense of how to build one of these franchises in a functional, let alone interesting, way, maybe stop until you do!”
Others are just as unforgiving — in a beautifully purple sentence, The Guardian‘s Peter Bradshaw bemoans, “there is something ponderous and cumbersome about Justice League; the great revelation is very laborious and solemn and the tiresome post-credits sting is a microcosm of the film’s disappointment” — while The Independent‘s Geoffrey Macnab calls the movie “surely the most infantile of recent superhero yarns — a film that squanders the talents of an impressive ensemble cast and eschews any meaningful characterisation in favour of ever more overblown special effects,” but not everyone found the feature to be a complete disappointment.
For Julia Alexander of Polygon, the movie is “almost salvageable” — with an emphasis on the “almost.” “There are good, cute and funny moments that the editing team should be applauded for, but there aren’t enough to distract from the beautiful, chaotic mess that Justice League ends up being,” she argues. “It’s difficult to try and explain whether Justice League fails or succeeds as a movie because the film feels like it’s still trying to figure out what it wants to be.”
That’s something that Consequence of Sound‘s Allison Shoemaker also picked up on. “Justice League feels very much like a film that first had one director’s hands on it, and then another’s,” she wrote. “That’s a good and a bad thing. It’s perhaps best described as a Snyder Instagram post with a heavy Whedon filter applied over the top. If Justice League is a photo of your brunch, then it looks, sounds, and feels better than it actually is, because someone tweaked the hell out of it. It’s not as satisfying as it promises to be, but it’s still a passable breakfast.”
In a review from New York Times that displays its feelings in the headline — “Justice League, Better Than the Last One” — critic Manohla Dargis writes that “the new movie shows a series that’s still finding its footing as well as characters who, though perhaps not yet as ostensibly multidimensional as Marvel’s, may be more enduring (and golden). It has justice, and it has banter. And while it could have used more hanging out, more breeziness, it is a start.”
Rolling Stone‘s Peter Travers agrees with that point about more hanging out. “The scenes of the League members together, bickering and bonding, spike the film with humor and genuine feeling, creating a rooting interest in the audience,” he writes. “Without it, the film would crumble. Let’s face it, Steppenwolf is a CGI yawn, the action sequences are often a digital blur, the soundtrack defaults to loud whenever inspiration wanes and keeping it light becomes the first step to staying superficial.”
Responses got more positive as reviewers got nerdier, it seemed. Forbes‘ Scott Mendelson compared the movie favorably to a film only a true comic book fan could love. “Warts and all, it is unquestionably an enjoyable romp,” he wrote. “Like Batman Forever back in the summer of 1995, Justice League is Warner Bros.’ attempt to retrofit their significant superhero property into a lighter, campier and more kid-friendly package. It is more artistically successful as a soft reboot than a stand-alone movie.”
At io9, Germain Lussier was won over by what Justice League teased down the road. “Even when the film around them is sloppy or ineffective, the characters are likable — charming, even. That’s not something that can be said for many superhero movies,” he shared. “So despite the fact that there are only some parts of Justice League that truly work, the whole film is a bundle of potential. It creates genuine interest and excitement for a Cyborg movie, an Aquaman movie, and a Flash movie. This film does a lot of heavy lifting, which at times hurts it immensely. But as a result a foundation has been set. We know who these characters are, what they can do, and we actually like them.”
Black Girl Nerds founder Jamie Broadnax was more blunt in her take. “I had low expectations for this movie and was pleasantly surprised,” she wrote. ”Justice League delivers on its action, special effects, performance, and story. It’s a pleasant surprise to see a film with both Batman and Superman that isn’t abominable, horrendous and dreadful.”
Far more enthusiastic was ComicBook.com‘s Brandon Davis, who proclaimed that Justice League ”is the real deal. It’s an epic ensemble of super heroes. It’s the most fun you’ll have with Batman and his super friends, until their next adventure together, and marks the beginning of a brand new era of super heroes on the DC side of the spectrum.” That’s a veritable rave, especially considering everyone else’s feelings on the subject.
Perhaps The Atlantic‘s David Sims sums it up best, when he writes, “Justice League feels like a pilot episode — it’s half-formed, overstuffed, and narratively a chore — but at least its gotten all those annoying introductions out of the way. And it only took five movies to get there.”
Justice League opens Nov. 17.
Nov. 15, 9:08 p.m. Updated with the Rotten Tomatoes score.
Shepard Smith did it again.
On his show Tuesday, the Fox News anchor spent five minutes systematically dismantling conservative conspiracy theories surrounding a uranium deal involving former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. While several other outlets, including The Washington Post Fact Checker, have already debunked claims about the deal, some Republicans are calling for another special investigation into the matter.
In particular, Smith took aim at President Trump’s claim that the deal was a “scandal” that funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
“That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways,” Smith said. “First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here’s how it does work …”
However, the segment didn’t sit well with much of Fox’s conservative audience, many of whom called for Smith to be “FIRED for his biased reporting!!!!” and moved to CNN for his “lack of objectivity.” It was hardly the first time Smith has gone against the grain of the network — and, to the chagrin of many Fox viewers, it likely won’t be the last.
The network is known for several outspoken conservative personalities, such as Sean Hannity and formerly Bill O’Reilly, who have been at the forefront of pushing certain right-leaning viewpoints — as well as exploring far-right conspiracy theories, such as the Barack Obama birther movement. It’s no secret that Trump watches the network, which usually covers him favorably. Fox viewers, in turn, have a more favorable view of the president than the rest of the country.
On the other hand, Smith, 53, who has been at Fox for more than two decades, maintains that his job as a news anchor — not a commentator — is to observe and deliver the facts and let viewers decide for themselves. In an interview with the HuffPost last October, Smith denied that there was a “war going on” in the Fox studios between the news and opinion sides.
“Everybody’s got a job to do. [Sean] Hannity is trying to get conservatives elected. And he wants you to listen to him and believe what he believes,” Smith told the news site. “And I’m disseminating facts. It’s really apples and teaspoons. What we do is so different. He’s an entertaining guy who has an audience that he serves, and I deliver the news.”
Smith’s “persistent fact-mongering has made him persona non grata among some parts of the Fox News faithful,” The Post’s Paul Farhi wrote in March, with Fox fans taking to social media to demand Smith’s firing.
Here are five other times Smith has upset Fox viewers with his delivery of the news or on-air fact-checking.
That time he wasn’t afraid to use the ‘L’ word when describing Trump and the Russia investigation
In covering Trump’s falsehoods — those from his campaign and his administration — many media outlets and fact-checkers have hesitated to use the word “lie,” since that implies an intent to deceive. In July, though, Smith let loose on his show when reporting that a Russian lawyer had met with more people than the White House had previously acknowledged.
“We’ve been told a variety of stories,” Fox News’s Chris Wallace said to Smith. “And who knows if we’ve gotten to the end of the story?”
Smith’s lengthy outburst as he responded to Wallace indicated his frustration at the administration:
“We’re still not clean on this, Chris. If there’s nothing there — and that’s what they tell us, they tell us there’s nothing to this and nothing came of it, there’s a nothingburger, it wasn’t even memorable, didn’t write it down, didn’t tell you about it, because it wasn’t anything so I didn’t even remember it — with a Russian interpreter in the room at Trump Tower? If all of that, why all these lies? Why is it lie after lie after lie? If you clean, come on clean, you know? My grandmother used to say when first we practice to — O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling. And there are still people who are out there who believe we’re making it up. And one day they’re gonna realize we’re not and look around and go, ‘Where are we, and why are we getting told all these lies?’ ”
Wallace, rendered speechless, could only stare at the camera and shake his head after Smith finished.
That time he said Fox News had no knowledge of Trump’s wiretapping claims
In March, Trump claimed, without evidence, that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, which served as his campaign headquarters.
The series of tweets accused Obama of tampering with the “very sacred” election process.
Legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, in a March 14 appearance on “Fox and Friends,” said he had spoken to three “intelligence sources” who claimed that Obama “went outside the chain of command” to spy on Trump, and used Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters to ensure that there were “no American fingerprints on this.”
Enter Smith, who said on his show that Napolitano’s claims couldn’t be confirmed by Fox News or pretty much anyone else.
“Fox News cannot confirm Judge Napolitano’s commentary,” Smith said. “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way. Full stop.”
He opened that same newscast saying that Trump didn’t have to make unfounded claims at all: “Of course, the president could learn firsthand whether the building in which he [lived] was wiretapped. All he’d have to do is ask the intelligence services. They work for him.”
As The Post’s Farhi reported, it was a rare bit of record-correcting for Fox but “no coincidence that the correcting came from Smith, whose off-message comments about Trump have made him an apostate to the conservative Fox News orthodoxy.”
That time he took on climate change deniers
In August 2015, Smith and Lisa Kennedy Montgomery were taking aim at a pseudoscientific study sponsored by Coca-Cola that said sugary drinks may not be a big cause of America’s obesity epidemic.
That’s when Smith said that cherry-picking studies was the same thing climate change deniers had been doing.
“Well, this reminds me of two things. The article in the New York Times this weekend pointed out: It reminds you of exactly what the tobacco industry did back in the day, and more recently it also reminds you of what the climate deniers, the climate change deniers are doing, as well.”
That time he told the New York Times that Obama is a U.S. citizen
Unlike commentators at the Fox network, Smith declined to get on the Obama birther bandwagon, instead declaring very publicly that the president of the United States was, in fact, a citizen.
The Obama birther argument animated some in conservative circles, including a man named Trump who would one day be president.
Trump began to raise questions about Obama’s qualifications for office in 2011, and he demanded to see the president’s long-form birth certificate and claimed he sent investigators to Hawaii.
For many, the debate ended when the president provided his birth certificate. Trump conceded that Obama was a natural-born citizen in 2016.
But Smith had questioned the birther movement for years.
In a 2009 interview with the New York Times, Smith said he was trying to counter “an ideological base” that believes the president is illegitimate and the country hijacked.
“An unreasonable comment to me is beginning with a statement that is contrary to fact and moving on from that premise: ‘Barack Obama is not a citizen; he is a Muslim looking to take down the nation,’ ” he told the Times. “When you begin with that premise, you are out of bounds.”
That time Smith called out ‘Joe the Plumber’ for saying Obama would mean ‘the death of Israel’
In what feels like another lifetime, a younger Smith covering the 2008 presidential election had Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher — better known as Joe the Plumber — as a call-in guest on his show. Wurzelbacher said he agreed with others that a vote for Obama would be a vote for “the death of Israel.”
For several minutes, Smith pushed Joe the Plumber to provide concrete examples of Obama’s record or associations that would back up his claim. Wurzelbacher couldn’t.
“I honestly want people to go out and find their own reasons,” he said. “Go out and get informed. That’s the biggest message I got for people.”
After he hung up, Smith added a fact-check.
“I just want to make this 100 percent perfectly clear: Barack Obama has said repeatedly that Israel will always be a friend to the United States no matter what happens once he becomes president of the United States. His words,” Smith said. He shook his head as he prepared to cut to a commercial break. “The rest of it — man. It just gets frightening sometimes.”
Read more:
Shepard Smith, the Fox News anchorman who drives the Fox News faithful crazy
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media
Fox News said Trump spent the weekend ‘working at the White House.’ He was at his golf club.
The left and right agree: Fox News destroyed EPA chief Scott Pruitt over climate change
