Synopsis: The Flash breaks reality by running fast (despite running fast multiple times in the past and it never being an issue) ending up not only in the past, but in a different universe with another Barry Allen.
I went into this with one thought in mind: this is going to be a complete mess. I mean; it had an advertising campaign which consisted of trailers that would play in the cinema and then have “full trailer available online” at the end, and fuck that. At the very least they could have done something cool and released the whole trailer early but sped up so it goes by in a second. That level of laziness when it comes to marketing is never a good sign. I assumed it would be worse than Morbius and that I’d hate it, but it would at least be fun to complain about. That’s why I’m actually slightly annoyed that The Flash is *whispers* kind of good.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some serious flaws here. The CGI is shameful at some points, and there are some characters who are underused. None more so than Sasha Calle’s Supergirl. The restructuring at DC makes me worried that this will be her only appearance in the role; which is a shame as she’s really good. She has the screen presence needed for such a lofty role. Then again, she HAD to be great, because if she wasn’t then the online reviews would consist of unwashed masses insulting her. I mean, those kinds of people are still going to insult her, but at least now they’re not backed up by the general public agreeing with them.
The other downside was the advertising. There were rumours Michael Keaton was going to reprise his role as Bruce Wayne from the early 90’s Batman movies, these rumours were confirmed when he was put front and centre of the marketing campaign, to the point where it didn’t really feel like The Flash was the main character in his own movie. It would have been nice to have that as a surprise, as without that there are not too many “OMG” moments (with the exception of one near the end). I get why the studio did this; with all the controversy over Ezra Millers’ behaviour, they needed to find a way to draw people into theatres; and the only way they could think to do it was “Look, Michael Keaton’s back!”. I think it worked, it got people interested, but it did have the unfortunate side effect of making people expect more.
Don’t get me wrong; there are some great moments and cameos in the final section, but they’re not important to the story and are only seen briefly, to the point where it feels like they’re only there for fanservice. There has been some controversy about this section as it involves CGI use of dead actors in a way that some people might be uncomfortable with. It is a bit uneasy to think about the potential applications of deepfakes of actors, particularly at a time when streaming companies are trying to use AI to screw over writers.
Now onto the good: The performances are all great. Keaton crushes it as Batman, the aforementioned Calle could not be better. The main issue with some of the supporting cast is a lot of them aren’t given enough to do. Michael Shannon, for example, is underutilized despite being the main villain. The story itself is pretty good. The worry with a multiverse story is how you make it simple enough for the mass public to understand. It turns out the answer is spaghetti. It’s a bit weird how the character who mentions it would know of it, but as far as exposition goes, there are worse examples.
I did LOVE one moment. There’s a section near the end where he works out how to fix everything but at a personal sacrifice. It’s absolutely perfect. By which I mean; that is EXACTLY how I would I have done it. The unsaid heartbreak, the crushing weight of responsibility that decision leads to, the wonder whether the other person is aware or not. It’s up there as one of my favourite moments of the year, just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t come anywhere close. Overall; nowhere near as bad as you think it would be, but not as good as it needs to be. Plus, it is a bit weird that it’s ANOTHER Barry Allen story, no Wally West (Which would have been nice) or Bart Allen (which could have led to something fun).
Yes, I know he’s already been in a Batman film, but anybody who see’s that one quickly wishes they hadn’t, so it doesn’t count. People say casting Batman is hard, try casting Gordon, imagine trying to find someone who can match Gary Oldman’s performance! Tommy Lee Jones is good at doing the whole “gruff cop” thing, he played it to perfection in The Fugitive. And if Ben Afleck can play an older Batman, then we need an even older Gordon, and whilst Tommy Lee Jones is old, there’s no doubt in anybody’s mind that he’s still got it. He still has the ability to become his character and entrance the audience with his performance.
The Perks of being a Wallflower could work well as most male incarnations of the character, I see him best as Tim Drake, the third, and to me most interesting, Robin. He always focused more on the detective side of Batman (he becomes Robin by working out who Batman is, like a badass) instead of just the physical like Dick Grayson seems to. Also, he lacks the usual tragedy in his past that motivates him to be Robin; instead doing it because he recognises Batman’s need for a Robin.
an it did in the original source material). Robin should not be the finished article, he should be someone who needs guidance, who needs Bruce, but pretends he doesn’t. He basically needs to be a young adult acting like a petulant child. But you also need to remember that he is still Robin, so his still very dangerous and could possibly kill you due to being trained in weaponry, but not being too great at stopping himself. I think Egerton could do that, he could pull off that dangerous apprentice, and then, when the time comes, move onto further things with the character.
we’re not just myths), enjoy it mainly just for the entertainingly camp yet oddly menacing fun he gave in his every scene in the overwrought film. He was a needed shot in the arm of fun the film needed. But ‘camp yet oddly menacing’ is not a good description for Lex Luthor, it is however a perfect description for one of Batman’s more zany villains, The Riddler. Some people seem to think Eisenberg was trying to be Ledger’s Joker with his performance, and who really the fuck knows. But! Change his name, outfit and give him riddles to constantly weave, and you’d have a pitch perfect Riddler; the fun camp of Carrey’s but with some genuine menace more akin with Nicholson’s Joker. Sounds good to me.
perfect casting. But there is a bit more to it than that, I swear. One thing Hardy’s take on the behemoth captured well was how charismatic Bane is, a master of words as well as muscles, but it’s the latter of that is something I don’t think he captured as well. Yeah Hardy was big, but he wasn’t Bane big (I know I know, Nolan realism and all that), that’s where I think Dwayne could come in magnificently; as if there are two things The Rock is known for, it’s being fucking huge, and being very charismatic. The real hurdle would be whether someone as lovable as Dwayne Johnson can play a threatening villain convincingly and I don’t know, but I think he could. Again I think his sheer size will be his trump card in that department, and I think we can all agree we’ve seen less threatening looking people pull off being evil. Cough. One Hour Photo. Cough. Cough. Cough. Cough.
Dafoe has made a career of playing deranged and creepy characters, so topping it off with the Clown Prince of Crime just seems natural (and who cares if he’s already played an iconic super villain? No one gives a shit Chris Evan’s played the human torch anymore.) But it’s beyond him just playing crazy well; it’s the lairs and distinctive ways he can play crazy, from a comical bloodsucker in Shadow of the Vampire, to a just plain nasty hitman in Wild at Heart, to just playing fairly normal guys in Platoon
ff, now go away). Seriously, watch Nightcrawler, he’s insanely brilliant there with a sense of danger and fun that would make him perfect for the role of the Joker. The “fun” there is the most important aspect there for me, Heath Ledgers Joker was disturbing, no doubt about that, but it wasn’t that funny. The Joker should be a clown, their should be a comedic side to him, even if that comedic side is slow-cooked in sociopathy. For proof of this, what’s the definitive Joker story? The one most people use as a reference point for that character? Answer: The Killing Joke. Now, how does that story end? Answer: with a joke. The Joker tells Batman a joke mid fight scene that makes him break down in laughter (and maybe causes Batman to kill him, if certain 
completely recreated the mad scientist with a freeze-ray into a sympathetic Shakespearean tragedy; a normal man who only became the villain we know because he was betrayed while trying to save his wife’s life, and then became stricken with grief ready to go to any extreme needed to avenge her. So who better to bring this bald heart of ice to life than this classically trained bald thespian? As when he’s not trying to kill boy wizard’s. Fiennes is known for his startling character acting, bringing depth and nuance to countless characters; from portraying Nazi’s to a Hotel concierge. Add in his action experience in the Harry Potter Series and you have an actor seemingly born to bring this chilling villain to heart stopping life.
n his emotional arc won’t be as effective as it was in the animated series due to English being the actors second language. But there’s a lot of characters in this hypothetical film, and I feel the villain who will have the least screen time would be Freeze, so you won’t have time to go into his tragic backstory, you need someone with presence who can come in for a few scenes and knock it out the park, and I feel he can do that.
Troubled Productions 