The Last Duel.

Review #1879: The Last Duel.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Sir Jean de Carrouges), Adam Driver (Jacques Le Gris), Jodie Comer (Marguerite de Carrouges), Ben Affleck (Count Pierre d'Alençon), Harriet Walter (Nicole de Buchard), Alex Lawther (King Charles VI), Serena Kennedy (Queen Isabeau), Marton Csokas (Crespin), Željko Ivanek (Le Coq), Tallulah Haddon (Marie), Bryony Hannah (Alice), and Nathaniel Parker (Sir Robert de Thibouville) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, #1076 - Thelma & Louise, #1524 - Gladiator)

Review: 

"I think what it boils down to — what we've got today [are] the audiences who were brought up on these fucking cell phones. The millennian do not ever want to be taught anything unless you are told it on the cell phone"

It is not every day you can get to enjoy an old-fashioned long action drama, complete with actors who also serve as writers. But one can never know what to expect in the modern age, since I know you haven't exactly heard of this movie. I know I didn't really think of this one, which came out in October of last year and managed to generate a memorable statement from its director on how it failed (the budget was $100 million, and it made not even half of that upon release by 20th Century Studios); of course, the film was set to be released in the winter of 2020, but I'm sure you know why it was pushed back. Well, let us start with the details: the movie is as adaptation of The Last Duel: A True Story of Crime, Scandal, and Trial by Combat in Medieval France by Eric Jager, a 2004 historical novel that detailed the duel of trial by combat done between two knights of France on the 29th of December in 1386, which was attended by both members of the royal family along with residents of Paris (incidentally, both knights were in their mid-fifties when they did this duel) after one of them was accused of rape by the wife of the other knight; if the husband died, the wife would have been burned alive, as a sign of God's will. It was not the last duel ever held in the country (that happened in 1547 as a matter of honor), but it was the last judicial duel ever held that resulted in the death of one of the participants (incidentally, the survivor would live for ten more years before dying in the Crusades) along with extensive coverage from chroniclers and historians over the centuries. Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon wrote the screenplay for the film (incidentally, Affleck was at one point attached to serve as the main lead alongside Damon but instead elected for a supporting role). 

I was expecting a decent movie, albeit one that I hoped would justify its lengthy run-time. The movie is 153 minutes long, as it is a movie that shows the perspective of each of the main three characters in telling the story of the de Carrouges-Le Gris conflict, going from Damon to Driver to Comer before closing with the duel; not surprisingly, the movie has been compared to Rashomon (1954) in the showing of multiple perspectives. The result is a magnificent experience, a gruesomely honest movie that makes a 14th century tale seem quite diverting and relevant without falling into self-parody (there is probably an argument that one with an offbeat sense of humor could make a comedy out of the material, but I digress). Granted, it isn't a perfect epic, but it fills most of the requirements laid out from a period action drama to make it all work for riveting entertainment. Damon is enjoyable to watch here, capturing the duality that comes with his take on a historical knight: fierce but temperamental, rash but also brave in what and who is he is that proves quite interesting to view in each of the three perspectives, which only goes to show how a scene can be interesting when you see it from many angles, such as the moment with him arguing over fairness (in regards to not being named to a certain position) in front of Driver and Affleck. There are no real heroes or villains with this kind of story, and Damon does just right with what is needed here. Driver encapsulates the other side of infamy in imposing confidence, one with a certain kind of confidence and assured nature that plays off Damon and Comer in distinct ways throughout the perspectives for useful effect, which makes him a quality figure worth seeing for the duel. In other words: Damon and Driver make a good pair of figures to build for a fight, both wrapped in pride and confidence as heroes in their own mind. Incidentally, each actor did their own stunts, as coordinated by Rob Inch - while the helmets worn by each man makes their face visible in contradiction to history, it certainly doesn't affect the quality of the fight, which has a mix of jousting and fight with weapons in heavy armor. Not to be lost in this is Comer, trapped in a system of expectations that has her firmly at a disadvantage that she handles like a pro in timing. She carries her end of the story with knowing presence, a woman of fate more than anything. The rest of the cast do pretty well to serve their roles within the varying perspectives, which mostly benefit Affleck in his key part that he handles with collected confidence. The action is here and there, but it is well-executed and quite satisfying to play out amidst the look of the film, which looks pretty good for the time period. As a whole, the movie is a wonderfully executed one, one with attention to detail in craftsmanship from a director who has known what he has wanted to show on film for decades with worthy confidence to back it up. As an action period drama, Scott has made a clear winner that should deserve appreciation that could make a case for a cult classic in the coming years, one with enough entertainment in armored action and a useful trio to carry it all together. Brutal but fair, The Last Duel is the kind of movie you would expect a director to get angry about when people didn't appreciate its worthy talents in its time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

And with that, Action in August formally ends. Twelve films in the span of a month that all had a distinct level of action throughout a century of film was pretty interesting to do, and I hope you enjoyed reading every word of it.

The Town.

Review #1554: The Town.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Douglas "Doug" MacRay), Rebecca Hall (Claire Keesey), Jon Hamm (FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley), Jeremy Renner (James "Jem" Coughlin), Blake Lively (Krista "Kris" Coughlin), Chris Cooper (Stephen MacRay), Pete Postlethwaite (Fergus "Fergie" Colm), Slaine (Albert "Gloansy" MacGloan), Owen Burke (Desmond "Dez" Elden), and Titus Welliver (Officer Dino Ciampa) Directed by Ben Affleck.

Review: 
"It was concealing a character-based drama centered around themes that I was interested in, particularly the theme of children paying for the sins of their parents...But wrapping that in the sort of candy shell of a heist movie."

There is always room for another actor to find additional calling in directing, particularly if they have the instinct to accomplish it well. Ben Affleck (born in Berkeley, California but raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts) had started in acting since he was a child with television such as The Voyage of the Mimi (1984) before eventually moving on to search for work after high school in film (initially with small roles before his first lead role in Glory Daze in 1995). His prominent moment came at the age of 25, where he co-wrote and co-starred with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (1997, which resulted in his first of two Academy Awards). The years that followed resulted in a varying quality of films, but he moved on to directing with Gone Baby Gone (2007, which he also co-wrote), which led to fair notice. It is adapted from the 2004 novel Prince of Thieves written by Chuck Hogan (born in Massachusetts that based his story upon the dubious reputation of the neighborhood of Charlestown), which was adapted to the screen by Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard. After a few years of shuffling in development struggle (including a failed attempt to have Adrian Lyne to direct and Hogan to write a script for), Affleck found himself attached to star and direct. He was attracted to its similar to Gone, Baby, Gone in how he could use its structure of the story alongside its characters and dialogue that could inspire him to add on to it for a film adaptation. This naturally led to research being done within the region alongside consultation with the FBI and actual bank robbers, with Affleck finding his note-taking of the latter particularly fascinating. It should be noted that there exists three versions of the film - the theatrical version, which runs at 124 minutes (as per request by the studio), and an extended cut that runs at 153 minutes, alongside with a 154 minute version that has an ending more faithful to the novel (which is more darker; I picked the original cut because that seemed like the right one to pick).

What we have is a film wrapped entirely in Boston that might as well be summed up by its opening quote involving pride in one's city despite it ruining their life - one could almost think of it as Affleck's attempt to make a city crime movie in the style of Mean Streets (1973), although Affleck has cited influences being films in the crime genre like Heat (1995) and The Departed (2006). It is a fine film building on delivering a heist and drama worth investing some time with, headlined by a usefully-crafted ensemble cast and some usefully crafted action sequences that make a worthwhile sophomore effort from Affleck. For a film that builds itself on part-heist/part-human interest, Affleck handles acting/directing just fine, displaying range in getting what he needs from his fellow actors while displaying wavering charm in directing himself that works most of its points of finding oneself apart from what was and instead trying to look somewhere else for satisfaction in life. Hall does fine in going along with Affleck in unassuming prevalence that does fine with the occasional task needed that makes decent chemistry with Affleck. Hamm has something of interest to do in terms of authority and pursuit, which he handles alright in terms of terse usefulness in that segmented time needed. Renner outshines the others in terms of hardened edge and menace that drives the film in various scenes that can be as simple as entering in a lunch conversation with Affleck and Hall. Lively does alright when quivering against Affleck, while Cooper and Postlethwaite (in his penultimate role before his death in 2011) each do well in momentary scenes involving wat it means to wrapped in a web of crime. On the whole, I liked the film in what it manages to accomplish in its heist aspects mixed in with its attempts at looking at life beyond the score that lend itself to some useful points of interest without being too wrapped up in cliché. It's a nice movie, honing itself with some realism and atmosphere for a useful film to start off another decade of heist drama cinema.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the list for the final decade of focus this year. The decade will start and end with new directors to make their first spotlight moment, which includes a few notable films for the decade we just left along with some other ones to highlight that I hope you enjoy.

Chasing Amy.

Review #1514: Chasing Amy.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Holden McNeil), Joey Lauren Adams (Alyssa Jones), Jason Lee (Banky Edwards), Dwight Ewell (Hooper X), Jason Mewes (Jay), Kevin Smith (Silent Bob), Ethan Suplee (Fan), and Scott Mosier (Collector) Written and Directed by Kevin Smith (#794 - Clerks)

Review: 
"The people that write about movies and talk about how important film is, and blah blah blah, it's ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, film's not important. What's important is kind of the simple things: Family, survival, life. Film is just entertainment."

It's easy to be drawn into film if you have an interest from a young age. Kevin Smith once described himself as "raised on television", but he had not truly thought about doing a film until he saw the film Slacker (1990), which interested him in how different it was from other films of the time in entertainment in its approach to characters. He decided to try and make his own independent film while looking up directors that had done work with less money to draw from that ranged from Jim Jarmusch to Spike Lee; he spent four months at Vancouver Film School before returning to his native New Jersey to work back at a convenience store. This proved the basis for his debut with Clerks (1994), which you may very well already know as the ultra-low budget comedy cult classic. His next film the following year in Mallrats crashed and burned with audiences, although it later developed a cult following in its own right.

Sometimes you just have to have a film about the hows and whys of a relationship, regardless of how good or bad the material turns out to be. Part of the inspiration for Smith to do this film (which he would also co-edit) was the experiences with his then-girlfriend Adams. I suppose the true enjoyment of the film comes from how much it resonates in biting humor about the absurdities that can come from relationships, whether as friends or more. What we perceive in our minds about people and the self-doubts that can come from it can shape who we are. Not everything has a bright beginning or ending when it comes to trying to find love and make it stick because of how you love someone, not who it is. This was the first breakthrough for Affleck, who had started acting as a child before moving into small roles in film (such as Dazed and Confused, which also featured Adams). He does fairly well here, having a confident vulnerability to him that generally can sell himself with useful nature. Adams proves just as (if not more so) interesting, having an alluring charm and good timing on certain moments to make the inevitable chemistry pop-ups work out as fine as they do. Skateboarder-turned-actor Lee makes for a snappy third for the proceedings, being pretty amusing in combative bonding. Ewell does fine, although it is his opening scene involving Affleck, Lee, and a convention speech that is his highlight moment. Mewes and Smith continue their double act from before with no sort of trouble in bumming a laugh and perhaps a bit of insight.

Honestly, I guess it really depends on how much experience one has when it comes to relationships like this, where one wonders how the perspective changes from say a bachelor viewer to a married viewer or even just someone with their own distinct fluidity. We are talking about a guy who pines after a "lesbian", after all. All I can think is the same thing I can think of "standard romcoms" that have their own little conflict in contrivances: Who really cares? Who the hell really cares about if your significant other had some experience before you and why does it matter to make a film about?. For all of its little moments of raunchy humor, it really isn't that much different from the clichés of before, right down to detailing personality at moments and beginning contrivances - one might as well be watching Annie Hall (1977) if they need an anatomy of neurosis at that point. I can appreciate taking on trying to do nuance with a romcom, but the mileage that it tries to drive itself with isn't really as deep as it thinks it is, existing on the idea that I really will just think this dilemma is just that meaningful and different from before - basically like window dressing up a comic book store. Whether it is sensitive or honestly raw enough to truly make for meaningful experiences is up to the viewer. On the whole, it is fairly decent, garnering some laughs with an ideal trio while making some of its connections count in perceptions and poignancy for a fair time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dazed and Confused.

Review #1138: Dazed and Confused.

Cast: 
Jason London (Randall "Pink" Floyd), Wiley Wiggins (Mitch Kramer), Sasha Jenson (Don Dawson), Michelle Burke (Jodi Kramer), Christine Harnos (Kaye Faulkner), Rory Cochrane (Ron Slater), Ben Affleck (Fred O'Bannion), Adam Goldberg (Mike Newhouse), Anthony Rapp (Tony Olson), Marissa Ribisi (Cynthia Dunn), Catherine Avril Morris (Julie Simms), Matthew McConaughey (David Wooderson), Shawn Andrews (Kevin Pickford), Cole Hauser (Benny O'Donnell), Milla Jovovich (Michelle Burroughs), Joey Lauren Adams (Simone Kerr), Christin Hinojosa (Sabrina Davis), and Parker Posey (Darla Marks) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock)

Review: 
It seems only natural to cover this film, released in the years after other coming-of-age teen comedies such as Porky's (1981), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), Sixteen Candles (1984), but with an intent to stand out from those by trying to depict high school without trying to verge into any unnecessary drama while having an assortment of 70s songs wrapped up in a small-town movie without too much plot. I suppose the best words to describe it would be to just describe it as something wrapped in a time capsule with a bunch of albums and a bunch of items of leisure stuffed inside that will certainly take some people back while being handy entertainment for others. With such a big group of actors and characters like this, it's interesting to see who doesn't get lost in the shuffle too much and stick out.  London is a pretty fair lead to follow along with, a casual kind of guy that proves useful for a few laughs. Wiggins is also pretty casual, fitting in with what the film wants to go without looking out-of-place. Others such as Jenson, Burke and Harnos are okay, and Cochrane is pretty amusing to be around with. Affleck, in one of his first film roles, stands out handily, making something out of his bully material that can certainly seem familiar - for better or worse. Goldberg, Rapp, and Ribisi, playing an intellectual trio occasionally mixed in with the fun times, prove to be alright with having a few awkward laughs. Easily, the one who stands out is McConaughey, starring in his second ever role (appearing in a bit role in My Boyfriend's Back the same year), doing well with what he is given that makes for such amazement. He just sticks out with the way he chooses to interact in this landscape, whether when talking about a car or when talking about "livin'", it's easy to see in retrospect how he became such a prominent star. It is clear that there was a dedicated effort to capture an exact feel for the setting of the summer of 1976, with one-sixth of the six million dollar budget going towards licensing for usage of the songs featured from "Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo" by Rick Derringer to "Slow Ride" by Foghat.

The movie isn't really about anything too deep in particular through its 102 minute run-time, but what it shows through its numerous characters is people certainly having some sort of good time. There isn't any kind of overtly cliche characters, everyone seems to just blend in, for lack of a better term that will prove interesting to follow through with for the most part. There isn't too much of an aim beyond just where it wants to show, but it isn't just a nostalgia trip that worships the "glory days" of high school; obviously the lens one views that era of their lives is different for a teen from the 1970s than a kid from the 2010s, and it'll play into how they see scenes in the film such as the scenes with the teens at the main hangout place or the casual conversations that go on there or elsewhere, or the scenes involving hazing the incoming freshman or the scene with neighborhood cruising while wrecking mailboxes. Perhaps having good memories of the times of the youth make this a great sit-through. I can look back on my times of youth decently enough, but I can't for the life of me think that I need to recollect these memories too much, but perhaps that's not the whole point. I myself am not too hard on movies for relying a bit on nostalgia, just as long as it doesn't go overboard - which the movie does fine with. The film resonated with me more often than not, but I can't find myself thinking that this is anything too particularly great, just being a decent feature. It will serve as handy entertainment for those who are curious to seek it, whether if looking for a decent time, palatable music or a trip to a different age.

Next Time: Spooktober officially begins.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Surviving Christmas.

Review #890: Surviving Christmas.

Cast:

Ben Affleck (Drew Latham), James Gandolfini (Tom Valco), Christina Applegate (Alicia Valco), Catherine O'Hara (Christine Valco), Josh Zuckerman (Brian Valco), Bill Macy (Doo-Dah/Saul), Jennifer Morrison (Missy Vangilder), and Udo Kier (Heinrich) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After)

Review:

Here's a quick description of how the movie is: It's terrible. It is easy to say this movie is terrible, because it is terrible on a massive scale. The majority of the jokes do not land. The characters aren't ones to root for in any capacity, nor ones we should be following. The story trudges at such a bland pace that borders on being tedious that it makes for not only an unfunny movie but also a boring movie. It isn't so much Affleck's fault as it is the script's fault for being bad. Never once does his character come off as anything other than pathetic or flat out creepy. His pursuit of trying to spend time with people so he isn't alone on Christmas (which means bribing a family, naturally) never really rises to a level where I should actually care. It just comes off as sad, not something to inspire laughs, which is a problem in a movie trying desperately (or for a lack of a better word, lamely) to make you laugh. Gandolfini is somewhat better, in the sense that his character seems easier to go along with. It doesn't mean he's likable, but it does mean that it seems more easier to accept. Applegate doesn't have a bad edge to her either, but she also doesn't really have much characterization either. Her chemistry with Affleck seems more basic than anything else, with no real sort of impact. It's nice to see O'Hara, but her character also isn't really anything of note. When one of the quips of the movie is a Sonny Bono reference (to his skiing accident, no less), it really does say something about just how this movie wants to take itself.

Perhaps it is easy to make a cynical kind of Christmas movie, which this film falls under. These are movies that try to be festive by completely taking the spirit out of what makes movies, and in effect the holiday being covered. There are movies like Elves (#680), which are dumb, but harmless in its attempt at cheer, even with killer elves. Then there are movies like Christmas with the Kranks (#082) and Just Friends (#838), ones with the bare minimum of cheer along with a lack of laughs. But then there are movies like Santa Claus (1959, #309) Jingle All the Way (#491), The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause (#496), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (#507), Four Christmases (#772) and A Madea Christmas (#872), where it seems that cheer has been replaced with some form of misery, intentional or not. There aren't really any sort of laughs because of the movie, though it can inspire laughs at its expense. And then of course there is Deck the Halls (#497), the ultimate in terrible Christmas movies (for this show), a movie that sucks out the holiday spirit completely with a baseless plot and even more baseless characters. But with all of this, where does Saving Christmas stand? I'd say it falls around the bottom, managing to be a movie bereft of fun while also tremendously tedious as well.

Most of the examples listed actually sound like they could've been made into dramas, in part because they aren't really funny enough to be anything other than sad ideas. In fact, this film actually does have some attempt at drama, particularly at the end, but of course the movies doesn't actually have any sort of buildup nor does it earn any sort of pity. Most of these movies (except Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) deserve pity for being terrible. Here's the bottom line: Skip this movie.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Review #788: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Superman / Clark Kent), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Scoot McNairy (Wallace Keefe), Tao Okamoto (Mercy Graves), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), and Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / The Flash) Directed by Zack Snyder.

Review
The idea of a movie with Batman and Superman facing off against each other is not a new concept (in fact, a script had been written back in 2002, though naturally that idea did not come to fruition), but in theory the concept shouldn't work, considering that Superman is....well, Superman. But of course this is not a movie about a face-off, it's a movie that attempts to establish other DC superheroes (such as Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, the Flash) which I do applaud in the sense that the DC movie universe has had very little success with franchises not named Batman or Superman, with their biggest problem being that it took them this long to even put these characters to screen. But does it make sense to include numerous heroes in the same movie?

The answer to all the questions (including the unasked one of if it is actually any good) is a no. And yet, it works for April Fools Day because of the fact that I was laughing at it. It was the only way that I kept myself sane for a movie that has the nerve to be 151 minutes long and manage to feel even longer (apparently there is even a 3 hour edition, because I guess home media releases will really need it). When I said "establish" other superheroes, I did not mean a conventional way of say, having the heroes we know (like Batman and Superman) encounter them (save for Wonder Woman, who is in the movie for about 20-25 minutes)...but instead have them introduced to us via video files. The fact that the movie really doesn't do a great job in actually giving us a glimpse into heroes not named Superman and Batman is troubling, but not exactly the biggest sin in this movie.

The movie starts out with (spoiler alert for anyone who's never heard of Batman's origins - which would be no one) the death of Bruce Wayne's parents (with some inspiration taken from The Dark Knight Returns, which I had read earlier in the week), but honestly there's no point to the scene because that (plus the scene with the bats) is completely unnecessary. The acting in the movie ranges from passable to deserving of mocking. Affleck is pretty decent, and it is nice to see an older Batman for once (unnecessary opening scene non-withstanding), but not even he can save a movie that can't keep focus. The plot feels very ham-fisted together, with events happening and going without any real definition. The dream sequences are especially jarring, mainly because they don't really gel well, only seeming to make the movie feel even longer. Saying the words "Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor" does seem a bit ridiculous, and his performance actually makes me wish I was watching Robert Vaughn in Superman III. He never seems evil, coming off more as a Willy Wonka reject, and he just gets on your nerves after a while.

Batman and Superman do indeed fight...for maybe 10-15 minutes. Naturally, it's a one sided fight (that is predictable if one saw the trailers beforehand), and while I will admit that it is a decent fight...it ends in the most idiotic of ways. It isn't a spoiler to mention that both of the heroes' mothers have the same first name of Martha. Yes, that is actually the word that essentially stops their conflict. Not an epiphany, not a third party hero, a coincidence that someone probably figured out when reading Wikipedia articles on Batman and Superman. It's weird how one can make a movie that feels so detached from reality (compared to other, better comic book movies); even scenes where cities are being totaled don't really evoke any feelings. The final fight in the movie (with Doomsday, who also was spoiled in the trailer, and manages to look really ridiculous) is a jumbled mess, but at least Wonder Woman is finally given something to do, like fight, for one thing.

The movie feels so bloated and so untrained that it made me laugh (albeit in a sad way); the fact that I saw it in a half empty theater is also a bit sad, but the fact that Marvel not only had a head start on making a movie universe, they also seemed to be the only one who can properly set a timetable on what to do. Even though the movie is bound to be a moneymaker, not even money can hide the sad fact that this movie just does not work. I understand if people like the movie (grim-dark is admittedly entertaining, and I did like reading The Dark Knight Returns), but for me the movie was only really enjoyable when I laughed to myself about it.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Daredevil.

Review #443: Daredevil.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Matt Murdock/Daredevil), Jennifer Garner (Elektra Natchios), Colin Farrell (Bullseye), Michael Clarke Duncan (Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin), Jon Favreau (Franklin Nelson), Joe Pantoliano (Ben Urich), and David Keith (Jack Murdock) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson.

Review
On November 2, 2006, Ben Affleck stated his disintrest in being Daredevil again, saying "by playing a superhero in Daredevil, I have inoculated myself from ever playing another superhero... Wearing a costume was a source of humiliation for me and something I wouldn't want to do again soon". Irony is a terrible thing isn't it? Yes, Ben Affleck will be Batman. Yes, I would've liked to hear about much better things, like a Wonder Woman movie, or when the Hulk will get a film that will actually get a sequel. But hey, at least Affleck has some experiance as a costumed hero, and it was a success, right?...Sort of. It was a financial hit when it first came out, and yet all that this inspired was an Elektra spinoff...and no sequels. It's a stand alone film, and an unfocused one at that. My first question for this film came when you first see Daredevil's costume. Maybe it's just me, or my complete non knowledge of the comics, but Daredevil's costume is hilarious. Maybe it's the shade of red, or how it looks at night, but it looks very funny. The film starts off...normally, and the action is okay, and than we get introduced to Elektra 30 or so minutes in. You'd think that the subplot between Elektra and Daredevil would be entertaining, but it's mild in its approach, and it makes you yearn to see the over the top Colin Farrell (Who I last saw being harassed by Kiefer Sutherland in Phone Booth), or wonder why Michael Clarke Duncan isn't seen in this film too much even though he is an entertaining villain. Affleck isn't too bad, and I admire his attempt to be like the character because he apparently read the comics as a kid. The film...just can't support itself. It's not a great or good comic book film, but it could be passable for some, and I give this more credit then other early 2000's comic book movies (Catwoman, Fantastic Four, or even Green Lantern) that weren't as good. I've heard that people like the Director's Cut more than the original version, but at this point I just want to keep this review under a millenium words long. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.