I Mustache If You Liked "Justice League" ?

Justice League (2017)

Rated PG-13

Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller, Jeremy Irons,

Directed by Zack Snyder

The Story:

Steppenwolf (the villain, not the band) is coming to Earth to destroy it. It's up to Batman (Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gadot) to gather a band of heroes to defeat him. Ah, if only Superman (Cavill) was still alive..

I was determined to not have another DC Extended Universe film hit my "Turkeys of the Year" list.

So I sat and watched this one awhile ago.

I know I dozed off for a few minutes at least, and when I woke up, nothing substantial had been missed.

I also know I've never dozed off during a Marvel Studios film. At least not during the first 4 or 5 times I've seen it.

Is it fair to compare the Marvel Cinematic Universe to the DCEU?

Not to DC it's not.

Again, I've pointed out what I see as some of the flaws in the DC approach to movie-making.

The tone is too dark, and the films were too rushed. Marvel took a decade to lay the foundations, and the fans, both hardcore and casual are invested by the 19th film to see what is happening to their favorites.

Conversely, DC launches a team-up from nearly the first movie, and then expands on it with the next film, tinkering with the tone mid-film to try and be more Marvel-like.

At this point, I'm not buying it.

While this movie is more watchable and more entertaining than Batman vs. Superman, that's not really saying much.

It's the old being poked in the eye by a dull stick versus a sharp stick argument.

Then when you stack it against what Marvel has given us so far this year (Black Panther and Infinity War) then you see how this movie just totally pales in comparison.

I want to like these films. I want DC to succeed.

Trust me, I'd much rather see ALL the superhero movies be good.

Maybe next time?

I'm not sure how many chances I'm willing to give, but I do know I'll never buy a ticket to see one in the theater.

What a waste of money that would be.

Final Grade: D+ to F

Unimpressed Sums It Up..."Nocturnal Animals"

Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rated R

Starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer,

Directed by Tom Ford

The Story:

Susan Morrow (Adams) is a wealthy art gallery owner. She is married to Hutton (Hammer), but was previously married to Tony (Gyllenhaal). Well, Tony has sent his ex-wife a manuscript for his upcoming novel to read. It's called Nocturnal Animals. As Susan reads it, it's a very intense work that may also be an allegory to his time being married to Susan.

Cue the intrigue.

Ah yes, the old "story within a story" effect.

This time, instead of a movie or tv show taking place, it's a novel being read.

Gyllenhaal gets double duty as both flashbacks to the time with his wife, and also as the main character of the book.

Except I was bored by all of the characters within the first 10 minutes.

I was actually ready to turn it off during the opening credits.

Watching obese naked women dance on platforms is actually not my idea of a good time.

But that's art! As presented at Susan's gallery, I was already put off before the movie even begins.

Then as each new character is introduced, I really didn't see any reason to care for them, or want to see where the story was going.

Great actors, don't get me wrong.

Just put into a storyline I really had no ambition to soldier through to the end.

Then as I'm doing research on the film, it's one of those arthouse "best of the year...accolade after accolade" films.

So apparently, maybe I'm just not highbrow enough of a movie snob to appreciate what's sitting in front of me, and I would be happier watching an Adam Sandler movie.

Well, I did watch the Waterboy again a few days later, so yeah, maybe.

: )

Your mileage may vary, but this one was ejected and tossed on the scrap heap for worst of the year consideration.

Final Grade: D

Epic Movie...Epic Fail. "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Rated PG-13

Starring Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot,

Directed by Zack Snyder

The Story:

Taking place at the climactic battle in Metropolis, Bruce Wayne (Affleck) watches as Superman (Cavill) pretty much destroys the place in an epic showdown with General Zod. Fast forward 18 months, the world isn't sure whether or not to trust Superman, and reports of the return of the vigilante Batman, more ruthless than ever are circulating out of Gotham. These two are on a collision course, and it's not going to be pretty.

Okay, so let me repeat something I've said before:

The first cinematic team-up of Batman and Superman, ever, should have been a license for DC to print money. It should have been so amazing when it was released, that it would still be playing in theaters today.

It should be the highest grossing movie of all time, even after adjusting for inflation!

Why?

EVERYONE knows who Superman and Batman are.

Even if you've never read a comic book, you've seen them, somewhere. Shirt. Lunchbox. Underwear. Hat. Action Figure. Previous movies. Cartoons.

But yet, that didn't happen.

Why not?

Take your pick, this movie offers up 2 and a half hours (!!!!!) of reasons about what went wrong.

Here's my observations:

1) We don't want to be like Marvel!

Good call, so put out dour movies with no humor or really likable characters.

Really, that seems to be DC/Warner Brothers rallying cry.

We want to be the "adult" superhero movie.

They want the critical acclaim and adulation that came with the Nolan Bat-trilogy, but the box office success of Marvel.

I hate to say that you can't have it both ways, because clearly you can.

Except your rallying cry says "we don't want to be Marvel!" and they've consistently put out movies that have been critical and commercial hits.

I can sit here and compare Marvel to DC all day long.

No seriously, I'm at work, and it's kind of fun taking a break you know. :)

But at the end of the day, I try and judge a movie simply by what it brings to the table...

But yes, comparisons are hard to avoid.

Here's some other areas I feel the movie went wrong:

A) Hey, let's make a cohesive DC Universe!

Great idea. Wrong tactic.

Again, Marvel introduced us, slow burn, to each character who would eventually make up the Avengers.

DC has started with The Avengers, more or less, and said, see, one big universe.

Except they are starting with a sequel to a movie (Man of Steel) that...sucked...is that the good critical term?

I have little problem with Cavill in the suit, of course, they rarely let him say or do much except punch and be angry while wearing it.

I have a bigger problem with the suit.

That's not Superman.

He should be bright and shiny (not literally...ugh...) but those reds and blues should pop out, and not be subdued and shadowy, nearly black on viewing.

That's Batman's job.

B) Nobody cared that Superman died (whoops, Spoiler!) .

Let's be honest, when Doomsday killed Superman in the comics (whoops, spoiler again!) it was a BIG deal! Sure, nobody thought he would stay dead dead, but for a bit, he was dead. And the world mourned.

Why?

He'd been doing it for-ev-er. He was the gold standard that all the heroes looked up to, and when he gave his life in battle, the entire world mourned. All the heroes gathered to bury their comrade, and the entire world was saddened.

Hello... not 5 minute earlier, the world was trying to decide if they should worship Superman or deport him because he was too dangerous and an unknown entity.

So when Superman dies at the end of the movie...meh.

Aside from Martha (Lane) and Lois (Adams) who really cared? Batman, a bit, because he realized he had misjudged Clark. But the show by America was just that, a show. "Whoops, our bad, thanks Supes!"

C) The Dark Knight Returned Too Soon

Speaking of scrambling storylines, how about the proverbial DC omelette where they took the battle from The Dark Knight Returns and mixed it into this film. Except again, they take the older, wiser (eh...) Batman against a rookie Superman. Too soon, too unnecessary.

D) Someone thought Jesse Eisenberg would be a great Lex Luthor.

He didn't. Shame on you, and I hope you're now looking for work somewhere. Not sure what movie he thought he was in, but he seemed to be channeling more of the Joker than Luthor when he was onscreen.

E) The "Ultimate Edition" DVD has another 30 minutes of footage that makes the story better

Bzzzt.

Wrong answer.

While it may be true, no DVD release containing footage should make a movie "make more sense and be easier to follow" than what was released in theaters. If that's the case, your editors are failing at their job.

An enhanced version should enhance the story, not tell it better.


Okay, I need to stop kicking this dead horse while it's down, so what, if anything did they get right:

I) Ben Affleck makes a great Bruce Wayne & Batman

II) Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman

III) Jeremy Irons was terrific as Alfred


The fact that this movie was so savaged by critics and rejected by audiences caused DC/Warner to stop, reshoot Suicide Squad to inject "more humor" and move some studio bosses around to get a better handle on their universe.

So basically they decided:

1) We don't want to be like Marvel!

Good call.

However, I need to grade on a curve with superhero films, and much like The Fantastic Four suffered because of what they "Should Have" done compared to what they did, so to will this film.

There was just too much unrealized and wasted potential, and too much grim atmosphere.

Not my particular flavor of superheroics.

If I'm going to spend 2 1/2 hours of my life watching superheroes...

well...

Make Mine Marvel.


Final Grade: D+

Who Is Conning Who? "American Hustle"

American Hustle (2013)

Rated R for language

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner

Directed by David O. Russell

The Story:

Irving (Bale) is a con-man. His lover, Sydney (Adams) are getting rich scamming people.  Then along comes FBI Agent DiMaso (Cooper) who enlists the two to help him take down crooked politicians like Mayor Polito (Renner).  Get ready for the mother of all con artist/flim flam movies... based on a real story!

If you can stay awake long enough to get through it.

It went on 1.5 x within 5 minutes... trying to see if it was interesting at all.

I couldn't find any interest.

I think I let it run for the first 45 minutes before I realized that I honestly didn't care one bit about who was doing what to whom, or why.

Not good for a movie like this.

An incredible waste of talent.

Some of the reviews I see say that it really picks up in the 2nd half.

While I suppose that's better than being let down, if you never feel any connection to the characters, it seems to me, you're fighting a losing battle.

Final Grade: D

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: Maybe I'll try and catch the ending someday on cable. But I'm sure I'll find a million other things to watch or do instead.

It's A Super Weekend...Part One... "Man of Steel"

Man of  Steel  (2013)
PG-13 Violence

Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shanon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane

Directed by Zack Snyder


Man, I really miss John Williams' score.

The Story:

On the doomed planet Krypton, Jor-El (Crowe) sends his son on a rocket towards Earth hoping that his son will grow to become a great man.  On Earth, the infant is found and raised by Johnathan and Martha Kent (Costner & Lane) on a farm in Smallville, Kansas.  Johnathan warns their son Clark ( Cavill) that the world isn't ready for a man with his powers, yet Clark is compelled to do good things to help his fellow man.  When plucky reporter Lois Lane (Adams) stumbles upon the story of a lifetime, will she reveal to the world what she knows about this super man ?  When General Zod (Shannon) comes from the Phantom Zone to find young Kal-El, will the Earth survive a Kryptonian invasion?

So many questions...

Let's get to the answers!

When it comes to expectations for this movie, it helps to set the bar low.

No, lower than that.

:)

Forget what you've seen on the screen from Marvel, this is DC.

"There is No Fun Allowed In This, Or Any DC Universe Movie!!"

They are not going for the sheer fun and popcorn atmosphere.

No, DC wants to be grim and moody.

They want atmosphere for their universe.  If you loved the Dark Knight trilogy of films from Christopher Nolan, has DC got the film for you.

Because basically, Nolan and David S. Goyer have taken the big blue boyscout and sprinkled a great heaping of bat-grit to the world of Superman.

Hey, it worked for Gotham, why not Metropolis, right?

And it does work, don't get me wrong.

I'm just saying, if you're thinking that this movie is going to resemble any Marvel franchise, whether Disney, Sony or Fox, you couldn't be further from the truth.

The same was always said about the comics.  Marvel was fun, and it felt like it could happen in your own backyard.  DC always had that feeling of fake-ness to it.  Whether it was the writers or the settings, things are more real in New York or Chicago than they are in Metropolis or Gotham.

The movies are going to do much the same.

You're not getting the movie franchises you want from DC.

You're getting the franchises you deserve!

;)

"New York?  Compared to Metropolis, New  York Got Off Easy"

For the most part, this movie gets way more right than it gets wrong, whether that wrong is personal opinion/choice or straying drastically from the source... it's a bit of both.

Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) is black, not a problem with that.  He does a great job with the limited screen time that he has.

Jimmy Olson is non-existent, apparently changed to Jenny (Rebecca Buller) for reasons I still don't fathom.  Apparently they needed a damsel in distress for that one pivotal scene.  However, in the comics, Jimmy Olson was that damsel. ;)


It's things like that that puzzle me the most with many comic adaptations.

I'm more critical of DC because I don't have the same passion for the characters and simply revel in the fact that they are onscreen anymore.  Remember, seeing Superman on the silver screen is old hat at this point.  Now I want to see it done correctly.

However it seems like everytime they do something right, or something not-so-stupid, then something odd pops up that just made me wonder..."why" ?

"I am so Tired of Diapers..."

For example, I think Jor-El was used effectively throughout the movie.  Wasn't a fan of the way Krypton was portrayed with flying dragons, but whatever.  His coming back to help Clark (and Lois) was interesting and amusing.  I say, yay, they did a great job with Father # 1.

But...

I think it was pointless what they did with Johnathan Kent.

"Stop, I Want To Die Needlessly..."

I'm not just talking about the scene pictured above.
Though in the grand scheme of things, that may just be the stupidest death in the history of cinema.
For those not familiar with the source of the stories behind the movie, when John Byrne took over Superman in the 80s and DC "started fresh", one of the many things he did right in this reader's eyes: He let Johnathan Kent LIVE!!

Why should Clark Kent come from two broken homes, wasn't one enough?

But no...

To layer extra angst on Superman, you kill his second father.  I didn't agree with that decision in the 70s when they did it, I still disagree with it now.

Perhaps it was for the best though, as the portrayal of Kent in this film is someone who keeps telling his son that the world isn't ready for the power you possess...they will hate and fear you...

Oh. My. Goodness.

This is not the X-Men!

All of these complaints aside for a moment, this was leaps and bounds ahead of Superman Returns... ugh... that movie makes me throw up a bit inside my mouth just thinking of it.

: )

Henry Cavill made a great Superman for me.  Having not seen a majority of his film/television work, he is a "new face" to these eyes, and find him to be a worthy successor to the long line of caped Supermen that have come before him.

He's a little angrier than he probably should be, but again, I'll lay that at the feet of Nolan and David Goyer who wrote the script.

It was becoming a bit of a running joke at the end though, that the angrier Superman got, the stronger he got.  What, he's the Hulk now?

"Superman...Smash!"

Considering that the "S" supposedly stands for "Hope" on Krypton, much of the hope that Superman should inspire to the general populace is muted in this new screen version.

A darker suit.  Less humor.

We'll see where it goes from here.

I've heard much criticism about the climactic fight scene and how destructive it is.

It is definitely all of that, and then some. 

Oooh, look at what we can do to Smallville and Metropolis!!

Yes, after about 10-15 minutes into the fight it starts to feel like severe overkill.  I don't even want to think about what the real death count would be if Superman and Zod really went toe to toe like that.

I get it, and really, I shrugged my shoulders and can live with it.

But there is a buzz among some criticisms that I've read/heard that the destruction is Superman's fault and he's not a hero...

What the heck?

Apparently at that point, I watched a different movie than others.

The fighting was due to Superman trying to save the Earth, and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the bad guy.

Or the military for opening fire over a civilian population.

: /

Heck, the big fight scenes were the best part of Superman II, so it was inevitable that the nearly 40 years later, the stakes are going to increase.

Granted, Superman should have whisked the fight out to the desert, but I get it. 

This is the Nolan Superman, we have to have grim and gritty.


Finally, I have zero problems with how the fight ended.

Faithful to the source material, as written by Byrne decades ago.

That's Superman's greatest strength, he has that power but chooses not to use it.

This was a lose/lose situation, and I thought it was handled correctly.  This sets up the fact that he knows what he is capable of, and must ensure he never does it again.

Final Grade: C+

There Is Little "Doubt" That Today's Movie Might Polarize Some Viewers

Heaven help us...

The Story:

The 60s.  Kennedy is dead.  And Catholic Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) apparently has a penchant for boys.  Or at least one boy in particular.  At the school, Sister James (Amy Adams) brings up the peculiar situation to the principal, Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep). She immediately begins to dig to crucify (zing!) Father Flynn, but Sister James has doubts...

Well, if you're going to have a drama, you can do much worse than casting Hoffman or Streep in your film.  You know you're going to get a class act from both.

The problem is, as great as they are, if the material is wanting, then the film falls apart.  Even a great actor can't save a turkey.

Thankfully, this movie is engaging enough to keep you interested, if not riveted, to what is happening.

The scary part, Sister Aloysius seemingly knows from the start that Father Flynn is up to something.  She throws a casual remark out there that Sister James picks up and runs with.  Naturally, when things start happening that seemingly prove the rumors to be true... what do you do?

The staredowns between Streep and Hoffman are the best parts of the movie, as a man accused of...nothing...yet something...this was downright scandalous...in the 60s.  Plus you have a nun taking on a priest in the church...I don't even think that happens today.

Today, when isn't the Catholic Church in the news for something?

The ending is a bit... odd.  And I don't mean how they resolve the dispute, that was actually quite clever in how it was handled.

No, Streep's meltdown at the end was strange, and out of place.

While never admitting any wrong-doing, perhaps all the Father really was doing was comforting a confused boy.  Nothing more nefarious than that.

That could explain her scene, but otherwise, the film ran about a minute too long.

;)

Final Grade: B-

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: Once was enough, as with most dramas.

I Had Absolutely No "Trouble With The Curve".

While I really don't care for baseball, I do apparently enjoy a good movie centered around the sport.


The Story:

Gus (Clint Eastwood) is a scout for the Atlanta Braves.  The problem is, his eyesight is fading.  However that doesn't mean that Gus can't still do his job.  However, as a precaution, his boss (John Goodman) convinces his daughter (Amy Adams) to take some time away from her work and keep an eye on her dad as he scouts a top high school recruit in the Carolinas.  A rival scout from the Red Sox (Justin Timberlake) that Gus scouted for his team years earlier, arrives on the scene to check out the kid, and Gus' daughter!  Can Gus successfully scout the kid and save his job, or is he doomed to retirement?

First, it's nice to see Eastwood in any movies these days.  The man is a legend on the screen, and it's nice that he's still doing what he loves.  For the first time in awhile, he also steps out from behind the camera and lets someone else do the heavy lifting, so you know that has to be daunting to be the first guy to direct an acting AND directing legend in some time in your first time out!  Luckily for Robert Lorenz, he's actually been helping Eastwood for the last few years helming some of his features.

Then we have the plucky Amy Adams as Mickey, Gus' daughter.  While working her butt off to become partner in a law firm for the better part of a decade, she uses these few days off to try and reconnect with her father, and she comes to some realizations about herself and her father.

However, I will save the best for last, and say without a doubt that I am becoming a huge fan of Justin Timberlake, the actor.  He seems very at ease on the big screen, and his persona and demeanor carry him fairly effortlessly through the movies.  I enjoyed his Sci Fi flick In Time, really thought he was hilarious in Friends with Benefits, liked his work in the Social Network, and yes, he even did a great job voicing Boo Boo in the Yogi Bear movie.

So yes, all in all this movie was a very pleasant surprise for me from start to finish.  I went in with no expectations, and was very pleased with the movie I watched.

Could be a contender for the "Best of the Year" listing.

Recommended for a rental, and I could see adding this to the "Purchase to watch again later" pile as well.

Final Grade:  A-