RECENT WATCHES: Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)

Watching the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise fall apart has been much more compelling than any of the actual movies. It’s a series born of pure avarice and ego, of Warner Bros demanding a way to continue the highly profitable “Harry Potter” brand and of J.K. Rowling believing her own hype as a supposedly masterful world-builder and storyteller. The first film reeked of corporate I.P. brand desperation but the massive “Harry Potter” fandom showed up and made it a hit. I kind of liked that first one but was skeptical that Rowling and W.B.'s plan for a pentalogy were sustainable. By the time part two came out, the wheels were already coming off. The A-list actor cast as the main villain had become controversial and let's leave it at that. Rowling had revealed herself as a virulent transphobe and has shown a complete inability to shut the fuck up about that since then. The internet was starting to turn on the "Potter" books it loved so much, with many fans increasingly apologizing for their devotion to this fictional universe. And it didn't help that the second "Fantastic Beasts" movie, which doubled-down on backstory and a deeply uncinematic story structure, was fucking terrible. 

A sensible studio would have put a bullet in the beast(s) right then and there. Yet W.B. is too invested in the Wizarding World brand to call it quits. Despite bad reviews and increasingly radioactive buzz, "Crimes of Grindlewald" made just enough money to justify continuing the prequel series. And thus "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore," a movie nobody was demanding, pushed into production. Even in our ever polarized times, it's rare that a movie this big is greeted by so many heartfelt pleas to not see it. (I, for one, bought a ticket for "The Lost City" and snuck into this, for whatever that's worth.) "The Secrets of Dumbledore" opened to yet more controversy, as another one of its stars just can't stop attacking people, and the lowest box office of any of the "Potter" adjacent films. Which brings me to the actual quality of "Fantastic Beasts 3," a movie absolutely begging people to hate it. 

I hated "The Crimes of Grindlewald" so much that my brain has blacked out most of what happened in it. This installment seems to anticipate this and dismisses many of the lingering plot points. The important parts are: Muggle-hating wizard Grindlewald hides out with his followers and continues his plans to orchestrate a full-on wizard war against the normies. Dumbledore — who can’t attack Grindlewald directly, as the two made a special blood pact as teenage lovers — assembles a special team to save the day. This includes magic zoologist Newt Scamander, his brother and his muggle sidekick Jacob, and some other people who aren't as important. They attempt to foil Grindlewald's scheme to clear his name and get himself elected wizard prime minister. Meanwhile, Credence Barebone is still lurking about,  struggling with his anger, his powers, and his recently revealed status as a Dumbledore family member.

Part of why the "Harry Potter" series worked is because each installment could stand alone. The structure of each book/movie depicting a different year at Hogwarts allowed for a certain episodic feel, that kept shit from getting too bogged down. Rowling seems to be approaching the "Fantastic Beasts" saga as one long novel. We're only three movies deep and the narrative is already burdened by its own lore. "Fantastic Beasts 3" relies on exposition-laden conversations to put plot points to bed. The titular secrets of Dumbledore play out via terse conversations in dark rooms, as if David Yates and his team forgot film is a visual medium. The film's overwhelming focus on family secrets, tragic backstories, personal betrayals, and forgiving trespasses causes this wizarding world epic to more closely resemble a small-screen soap opera.

The entirety of "The Secrets of Dumbledore" is weighed down by the feeling that nobody wanted to make this movie. The pace is glacial, the story laboriously moving from one uninspired set-piece to the next. Dialogue-heavy exchanges set up sequences, which then play out with little suspense or excitement. At least two magical duels are depicted as swirly, semi-hallucinated encounters which are often difficult to follow. The climax is by far its most underwhelming scene. An important plot detail is resolved for mysterious reasons. Heroes and villains talk more about stuff that's going to happen eventually. And then it just ends, the movie moving on to its romance-heavy denouncement. "Secrets of Dumbledore" feels like a mandatory stop on a long journey that nobody is especially invested in making. 

As belabored and painfully slow as this movie is, it's an improvement over the second installment. It's not as strangled by sloppy writing, vague character motivations, and obsession with "shocking" plot twists. Mads Mikkelsen can't breathe much malevolent intent into a villain as shallow as Grindlewald but he's still an improvement over Johnny Depp's strung-out vamping. The movie does a better job of incorporating the fantastic beasts into its story of wizarding world politic intrigue and interpersonal relationships. There's a pretty fun sequence involving dancing scorpion monsters, the biggest of which sprays fire. The entire plot hinges around a magical fawn-like creature. A chase scene devoted to safely escorting it to the correct location is one of the film's better orchestrated set pieces. Most of the last movie's ludicrous twists are put to bed and few further ones are introduced. 

Yet all of these adjustments still feel like putting new wheels on a train that's already come off the tracks. Newt is still a hopelessly uninteresting protagonist and Eddie Redmayne's performance is still preoccupied with twitchy whispering and clownish body language. The scenes devoted to Credence, and all the melodrama surrounding his bloodline, feel utterly dour. None of the new characters are interesting at all. A subplot involves an agent going undercover within Grindlewald's inner circle. The film attempts to engineer suspense over the question of where his alliances really lie. But the plotting is so inert, and the characters such a blank, that it's impossible to care. It says a lot about how unenthusiastic everything about this movie is that Grindelwald's big scheme to get his criminal record expunged involves the German wizard president being talked into saying he's innocent.

Unavoidably, J.K. Rowling still sucks at making her wizarding world feel real outside the confines of Hogwarts. Despite the plot ostensibly revolving around the tension between regular humans and magical society, you never see that play out onscreen. Muggles are constantly mentioned but, outside of Dan Folger's Jacob, they don't interact with the wizards any. If Grindlewald's ascension to power was supposed to be some sort of commentary on the dispiriting popularity of fascism in our modern world — or even a parallel to Hitler's actual rise to power around the time this film is set — it's pathetically underdeveloped. (Not to mention such social critique would come off as pretty fucking insincere from a vocal bigot like Rowling.) While the reveal that wizard elections are heavily swayed by the actions of a magical baby deer creature isn't as dumb a bit of "Potter"-verse trivia as wizards just shitting on the floor, it's definitely up there. My friend informs me that wizards casting colorful bolts into the sky is how they actually vote. I took it as the "Potter" equivalent of rednecks firing guns off every time their favorite sports team wins.  

Ultimately, "The Secrets of Dumbledore's" attempts to right the boat after that disastrous last movie come off as awkward. You can easily tell storylines meant to run longer were hastily cut short, due to a total lack of interest. Every sector of this production is clearly exhausted from trying to make a bloated prologue interesting, resulting in a big budget blockbuster that is honestly boring most of the time. The handful of call-backs to the "Harry Potter" characters and settings people actually care about are sad cries for indifferent audiences to pay attention to this cumbersome story. The countless behind-the-scenes controversies makes one eager to say that the "Fantastic Beasts" series is cursed. The truth is far more mundane: This was always a misbegotten attempt to prolong a fictional universe that wrapped up a decade ago. Maybe the tepid box office response this time will finally bring this misguided enterprise to the premature, compromised end it was always destined for. [5/10]

Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2022) Part Two

27. House of Gucci

At this point in his career, I imagine Ridley Scott can do whatever he wants. Maybe he can't single-handedly green light a big budget “Alien” movie but he has his own production company. A-list actors want to work with him. He’s a respected auteur who has been at this for fifty years. So one can only assume that Ridley Scott wants to make a movie like “House of Gucci.” From a distance, the film looks like nothing but the most blatant of Oscar Bait. It’s a true story about family, money, sex, and murder, set in the prestigious world of fashion that plays out over the course of several decades. I can’t blame Scott for wanting an Oscar but, if that was the plan, it didn’t work. “House of Gucci” would receive only one nomination at the 2022 Academy Awards. 

Beginning in late seventies Italy, the film follows Patrizia Regiani. Despite being the daughter of a successful trucking company owner, Patrizia longs to be more. At a party, she meets Maurizio, the two quickly falling for each other. Maurizio is the son of Rudolfo Gucci, the co-owner of the iconic Gucci fashion company. Rudolfo initially disapproves of Maurizio marrying Patrizia but they are accepted by the other branches of the rich family. Soon, they become involved in the family in-fighting over that money and the direction of the famous brand. As scandal continues to circle the Gucci name, Maurizio grows interested in another woman… And Patrizia starts planning to hire a hit man.

Not too long into “House of Gucci,” there’s a scene where Patrizia slips on a slinky negligee and invites Maurizio, who has been working in the sun all day, into the office. The two proceed to enthusiastically bang on the desk. It’s a ridiculous, overheated moment. That’s when something clicked in my brain and I went “Oh, this is opera.” Scott is operating in the same mode here as he did in “Hannibal.” (A film that is also, maybe coincidentally, set in Italy.) The characters are exaggerated, the melodrama runs hot, and the story is concerned with twisted passion, perverse greed, and familial entanglement. In fact, “House of Gucci” seems to rather intentionally ride this tone into the realm of campy comedy. That would certainly explain why everyone in the movie talks with goofy “Mama Mia, that’s-a spicy meatball!” accents. I’m pretty sure all of this is suppose to be funny. 

I opened this review by asking why Ridley Scott chose to make Oscar Bait but, after watching the movie, it’s easy to figure out, Comedy or not, “House of Gucci” tackles some of the themes that Scott has been fascinated with all his career. Namely, Daddy Issues and family backstabbing. Maurizio and his father have a tense relationship, as Rudolfo can’t help but be reminded of his dead wife every time he looks at his boy. When he chooses to marry a woman his dad considers a gold-digger, it just furthers the resentment between them. In-between this and all the talk of betrayal and cash, “House of Gucci” almost feels like a spiritual sequel to “All the Money in the World.”

So “House of Gucci” definitely feels like a Ridley Scott movie. Does it look like one too? Pretty much. By this point in his career, Scott’s dynamic visual style has degraded into a recognizable series of quirks. There’s lots of overcast skies all throughout the film. The drab color saturation is sometimes turned up on the other end of the scale, when Scott wants to emphasize the heat of the Italian midday sun. There’s some interior shots lit by the warm glow of the fireplace too, to provide some of those “Barry Lyndon” vibes that Ridley loves so much. The moment that most reminded me of Scott’s glory days is Maurizio and Patrizia’s date on a row boat, the early morning fog rolling off the water. That was pretty. But the film’s cinematography is definitely more “Exodus” than “Blade Runner.”

If you really want to reach, “House of Gucci” slides in easily next to “All the Money in the World” and “American Gangsters” to form a thematic trilogy. Greed, the haves versus the have-nots, and rise-and-fall story structures all connect these movies. Yet those other Scott movies have kidnappings and an ear being sliced off, exciting shoot-outs and drug deals gone wrong. Most of “House of Gucci” is devoted to long discussions about stocks and business deals. It gets tiresome quickly, especially when spread out over a 158 minute runtime. The film seems to find the behind-the-scenes business decisions of the Gucci empire or people trying to grasp a larger share of the company’s stocks fascinating. The audience — or this viewer anyway — definitely does not.

As I waded through “House of Gucci’s” indeterminable runtime and a script that feels both bloated and underwritten, I tried to find something interesting to latch onto. Patrizia’s story arc is the best thing I could find. She begins the film as the daughter of a successful businessman but it’s not enough for her, as she still feels disrespected in her day-to-day life. The minute she sees how rich Maurizio’s family is, she becomes determined to grab more for herself. She’s constantly telling her husband to get more involved in the business, hatching schemes to seize more control of the Gucci corporation. She’s essentially a femme fatale, plotting and seducing and eventually murdering. But she’s a sympathetic one too, who hopes to escape her middle class upbringing and is determined to hold onto that standing once she achieves it.

That’s an interesting character to center your movie around, especially once you add a degree of ambiguity to the material. Does Patrizia really love Maurizio or is she truly just after his money? It’s a question that runs through the entire film, as even the murder-prompting revenge is motivated as much by her getting cut out of the family as it is his infidelity. Yet if this was meant to be a compelling grey streak throughout, perhaps the film should’ve developed the love story a little more. After only a few meetings, Patrizia and Maurizio are getting married. It seems like the script deliberately skips over most of the important scenes in their relationship. Their children barely get any focus at all and they seem at each other’s throats as often as they are in love. “House of Gucci” probably would’ve worked better overall if the film invested more time or passion into its central romance. 

But the movie’s inability to decide what it’s actually about is a problem it has the entire time. Let’s look at its most unnecessary subplot. Rudolfo’s brother, Aldo, co-owns Gucci. His son, Paolo, fancies himself a fashion designer despite his garish taste. His uncle violently rejects his designs and his father dismisses him as an idiot. Paolo becomes a stooge in Patrizia’s plot to consolidate the family’s riches, his attempt to launch his own brand derailed by a police investigation. If you think that scene must rank as the movie’s most farcical (and one of the few times it is genuinely funny), that’s before we see Aldo and Paolo arguing about washing dishes after the former is released from prison. What does any of this stuff contribute to the film’s overall plot? Not a whole hell of a lot. “House of Gucci” is full of digressive episodes like this, the script’s attention wandering off to bootleg bags, Patrizia’s friendship with a psychic, Tom Ford becoming part of the company, or Mauirizo’s affairs abroad. The movie’s focus is so scattered that the inevitable murder scene ends up feeling like more of an afterthought than a proper climax. 

The unnecessary quality of Paolo’s subplot is not the only reason I muttered “what the fuck is Jared Leto doing in this movie?” while watching “House of Gucci.” Rather than gaining a bunch of weight and giving himself gout again, Hollywood’s most insufferable proponent of the Method is buried under makeup and latex to play Paolo. Leto’s performance is the most exaggerated and cartoonish in a film already full of ghastly overacting. Perhaps because he wanted the audience to notice his capital-A Acting under the prosthetics, Leto effects a Mario accent and overdoes every single line and expression. The character is ridiculous, and Leto is too, but there’s little campy joy among all the flop sweat. The make-up is pretty good, insomuch that Leto is unrecognizable. Yet one must ask why they expended so much time and money making a handsome actor look like a balding, fat guy instead of just hiring one of Hollywood’s many capable balding, fat actors.

Like I said, overacting is the game of the day in “House of Gucci.” Leto has a lot of competition for the title of sweatiest performance in this movie. At first, his casting in this movie looked like another stop on Al Pacino’s late career tour to redeem himself as one of his generation’s greatest actors. Instead, it’s more of the hideous overacting that we’ve come to expect from Al, only missing a hooah or two to be more depressingly muggy. While Pacino and Leto aim for camp, Jeremy Irons seems genuinely conflicted. He’s pulled between the movie’s parade of goofy accents and an attempt to ground the material in some actual emotion. It’s a rare miss for the great actor and a shame too, as Irons is delightful when in bitchy mode. Instead he seems adrift. This is also true of Salma Hayek, another performer who is great at going over-the-top but stuck in a small, thin part here. 

Which brings me to the movie’s leads. Lady Gaga gained most of the movie’s critical praise as Patrizia. Gaga is certainly adapt at a certain type of fiery passion, which is well-served in a few scenes. Yet the script’s stubborn refusal to give any of its characters’ more of an inner life makes Gaga’s posturing seem like nothing but empty theater. And, try as she might, she can’t make the ludicrous accent anything but laughable. Starring opposite her, and in his second co-billing collab with Ridley Scott in 2021, is Adam Driver. While everyone around him overdoes it, Driver goes in the opposite direction. His Maurizio is calm and understated, even when he’s pissed off or horny. Maybe that’s why Driver and Gaga’s chemistry never quite feels like you’d expect it to.

By the way, most of the people depicted in the film are still alive and had largely negative things to say about it. In hopes of not endorsing the actual murderers, the filmmakers never reached out to the real Patrizia or her co-conspirators. Meanwhile, Tom Ford questioned the taste in turning a real life murder into such a tawdry tale. Critics were split — which is probably why only the Academy’s Hair and Make-Up branch felt compelled to spotlight the film — but at least it did better at the box office than Scott’s other 2021 release. Ultimately, “House of Gucci” is a misfire. The film aims for campy humor but good comedy is precise and well-paced, while this movie is unfocused and meandering. This story easily could’ve been trashy tabloid fun but Scott’s focus on the financial side of things drains the narrative of most of its sensationalism, forcing the cast to flounder theatrically. [Grade: C-]

Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2021) Part One

26. The Last Duel

In 1977, Ridley Scott would begin with career as a feature director with “The Duelists.” Considering the influential classics Scott has contributed to cinema, it was the beginning of a prominent legacy. In 2020, while filming his latest historical epic, Scott was 83 years old. Which is pretty old by any measure. This film was entitled “The Last Duel.” At the time, while wishing no ill will against Sir Scott, I commented that it would be a nice bit of dramatic symmetry if this ended up being his final film, if his career began with “The Duelists” and ended with “The Last Duel.” Of course, the ever-prolific filmmaker immediately went to work on his next project. Due to the pandemic, he already had the follow-up to “The Last Duel” in the can before it was even released. The two films came out mere weeks apart. Nevertheless, there is a feeling of finality in Scott's latest medieval story. 

Set in late 1300s France, “The Last Duel” follows the rivalry between Norman knight Jean de Carrouges and squire Jacques Le Gris. Both are veterans of France's various military campaigns and serve under Count Pierre d'Alencon. After the war, Pierre makes Le Gris responsible for restoring his finances. Carrouges, broke following the death of his wife and son from the plague, marries Marguerite de Thibouville and inherits a large dowry... Which is then seized by the count and given to Le Gris. At a festival, Le Gris meets Marguerite and immediately falls in lust with her. While Carrouges is on an unsuccessful campaign in Scotland, Le Gris breaks into his castle and rapes Marguerite. When she informs her husband of this, he is outraged. Le Gris denies the charges, causing Carrouges to demand a duel with the man. It would be the last judicial duel, in which the winner is declared right by the will of God, ever performed in French history.

“The Last Duel” has a story structure that seems unavoidably inspired by Akira Kurosawa's classic “Rashomon.” It is broken up into three chapters. The first depicts Carrouges' version of events, with Le Gris' account being shown in the second. The third and final chapter follows Marguerite's perspective, which is implied to be the truth. Each chapter progresses a little further into the story, keeping things from getting too repetitive. Moreover, the multi-layered structure gives the same lines of dialogue different meanings. Carrouges asking his wife if she's telling the truth plays very differently in his account of events than in her's. Opinions and depictions of characters change from each chapter, showing us that how we perceive ourselves and how others see us are truly very different. It might seem gimmicky but “The Last Duel's” narrative structure does make it a more compelling film.

Aside from its title and the premise of two dudes fighting, “The Last Duel” doesn't have much in common with Ridley Scott's debut film. That movie was about a long-standing rivalry between two men who hated each other from the moment they met. “The Last Duel” follows the arc of two men starting out as friends but slowly becoming the bitterest of enemies. Carrouges saves Le Gris' life in combat, the two having a mutual respect for each other. (At least that's how Carrouges recalls it.) However, as the count favors Le Gris more and more, it upsets Carrouges' sense of vanity. This is what really makes him hate the squire, even before he assaults his wife. Of course, we later learn that Le Gris has always found Carrouges insufferable, though he didn't tell him that. Nevertheless, “The Last Duel” does a pretty good job of depicting how professional courtesy can rot into murderous rage.

“The Last Duel” allows each of its principal characters to speak for themselves, so each retelling favors their outlook the most. In Jean de Carrouges' version of events, he's a put-upon honorable man. He's served his king and country and just wants financial stability in return. The plague has left him destitute, forcing him to go off on more military missions, as killing people is the only professional experience he has. This presents a rather amusing image of a knight as a broke-ass, blue collar worker. The actions he takes, such as attempting to sue a count and finally challenging Le Gris to the titular duel, he thinks of as increasingly desperate steps to insure he's simply given what he is owed. 

Of course, according to Le Gris, Carrouges is a totally humorless and conceited blowhard. In Le Gris' telling of events, he's the 14th century equivalent of a party guy, reading Latin poetry, having orgies with Count Pierre, and being loyal to his friends. A courtesy kiss he shares with Marguerite becomes a steamier smooch in his version. The two seem to share some chemistry... Which makes it all the more surprising that, even in Le Gris' recollection of events, the sexual assault is not exactly ambiguous. She says no, over and over again, as he forces himself upon her. Even in his own memories, where he's obviously trying to make it seem like she reciprocated his passion, the woman still didn't consent.

That sexual coercion plays a role in a Ridley Scott movie is not too surprising, since it's a topic that's cropped up in his work from time to time. (Though sometimes with xenomorph appendages standing in for less exotic equipment.) What is interesting is how “The Last Duel” explores attitudes towards sex in general in 14th century France. Count Pierre and Le Gris bed multiple women at a time, all their lusty needs satisfied. Carrouges, meanwhile, seems to treat sex as simply a release valve, something to be resolved as quickly as possible. This is best illustrated during a sequence where his beloved mare is mounted by a rogue stallion, a sight that greatly annoys him. He's most concerned with getting an heir, with good breeding, and otherwise thinks of sex as something frivolous.  

And if you're a woman, nobody is especially concerned with your pleasure at all. The third chapter of the film, showing Marguerite de Thibouville's perspective, makes it clear that it sucked to be a woman in the 1380s. Her father marries her off to Carrouges, in a strictly business-like fashion. When their passionless sex life can't produce a son, he becomes increasingly critical of her. Even slut-shaming her for a cleavage-barring top. Her recollection of the assault is the film's most bracing moment, leaving it exactly clear what happened. By asking that her rapist be brought to justice, she brings scrutiny, gossip, and criticism against herself. She's shamed for having admitted she thought De Gris was handsome, even by other women. At this point, “The Last Duel” makes the wider point that maybe it sucks to be a woman in any century, as there's unavoidable parallels here with our recent “Me Too” era. Especially when Marguerite's mother-in-law admits that she's a victim of sexual assault too. 

“The Last Duel” is a compelling narrative that draws you in and keeps you guessing, as it builds atop itself and heads towards its conclusion. Which is a good thing because, from a visual perspective, it's not the most distinct experience. At this point in his career, we know what a Ridley Scott medieval epic looks like. The film has, more or less, the same color palette as “Kingdom of Heaven.” That means lots of dour greys and dirty blues, reflecting the overcast skies and muddy grounds. Scott does include one Kubrick-inspired interior shot, as De Gris and Carrouge talk aside the soft glow of the fireplace. That was a good moment. Yet the innovative cinematography that used to characterize Scott's films have long since given way to a somewhat same-y approach.

If nothing else has united Scott's films in recent years, it's an increasing focus on graphic violence. “The Last Duel” is no different in that regard. In fact, it comes off as especially brutal, even by the standards of this director's career. When we first see Carrouge in combat, he's hacking, stabbing, and bashing his way through other enemy knights. He even wraps his fist in chainmail and punches a face in. All of this proceeds the final duel, which is equally intense in its violence. Horses and random bystanders crumble into bloody piles. The two men wail on each other, their grand duel eventually reduced to them wrestling awkwardly on the ground. It may be excessive but it also makes the point of how self-destructive the men's macho pride is.

If Scott was happy to cast a bunch of white guys as Moses and the Pharaoh in “Exodus” – which “The Last Duel' also resembles visually – obviously he wasn't going to put any actual French people in this. The film is a starring vehicle for Matt Damon and Adam Driver. Both acquaint themselves in the parts well enough. Damon balances enraged pomposity and self-righteous fury as Carrouge, a man keenly obsessed with his own pride. Driver, meanwhile, plays De Gris as a hedonist who can go to any length necessary to justify his own actions. At the same time, Driver adds enough charm to the guy, so that you can believe he would be popular and beloved by those who aren't aware of his full selfishness.

The most reasonable character in the film is of course, Marguerite. Jodie Comer plays her as a woman who, unlike the men around her, actually has been wronged. All she wants is the man who harmed her to be face some consequences for his actions and she's willing to risk everything to insure that. Comer doesn't play her as a heroic woman, simply as someone who has desperately been pushed too far. Driver's part was originally meant to be played by Ben Affleck, who now appears as Count Pierre. If De Gris justifies his hedonistic life style, Affleck's count doesn't bother. He loves to use his power to get what he wants, which is mostly money and women. It's pretty entertaining to watch Affleck camp it up in a role like this.

“The Last Duel” would premiere to less than stellar box office numbers last October. The film was another causality of the Disney buy-out of Fox, with the ongoing pandemic also keeping older audiences away from theaters. The unavoidable fact that non-franchise films don't seem to be making much money in the COVID era is another factor. Ridley, officially in the no-fucks-given stage of his career, blamed the low box office on those goddamn millennials. I think a three hour long movie about rape was always going to be a dicey proposition, commercially speaking. However, the film did win some fine reviews. (Though not a single Oscar nomination. You think it could've sneaked into Production Design or Costumes or something.) I think it's a pretty interesting film and well assembled too. Maybe it's not as good as “Kingdom of Heaven” or “Gladiator.” (Or “The Duellists,” for that matter.) But it's also a lot better than “Robin Hood” and “Exodus.” [Grade: B]

RECENT WATCHES: The Batman (2022)

Since busting onto the pop culture scene over eighty years ago, Batman has made countless cinematic appearances. From the high camp of the Adam West days to the gothic fantasies of Tim Burton’s films, the Dark Knight has explored just about every tone imaginable on-screen. Yet, discounting his occasional appearances as a Lego mini-fig, it seems the Caped Crusader’s films have been stuck in “dark and gritty” mode for the last seventeen years. Christopher Nolan’s trilogy was so focused on realism that it sometimes seemed actively ashamed of its comic book roots. Zack Snyder’s Batman was a hyper-violent fascist. So when the trailers for “The Batman” appeared, I was a little exhausted by what looked to be another grim and gritty take on Gotham’s favorite vigilante. Ya know, I just wanted a Batman movie that was a little fun, that had a little color in it. I went into the theaters a skeptic but I’m happy to say Matt Reeves’ bat-epic won me over. 

For two years now, billionaire orphan Bruce Wayne has been operating as the vigilante Batman. His brutal tactics terrify the criminals of Gotham City but seem to have done little to lower the crime rate. His obsessive one-man crusade has lead to an unsteady truce with the city’s police, especially Lt. James Gordon. When the mayor is murdered in his own home, and the killer leaves a note for the Batman, the two team up to investigate. The killer taunts the police and calls himself The Riddler, leaving elaborate clues and striking again and again. Bruce Wayne digs into the corrupt heart of Gotham City, encountering crime bosses and a cat woman and a penguin, as he unravel a mystery that is closer to home than initially expected. 

Each new cinematic iteration of Batman promises to bring something new to the table. While Reeves’ film does seem indebted to Nolan’s work to some degree, it ultimately finds a tone all its own. Batman’s status as the World’s Greatest Detective is emphasized. The film actually does devote long stretches of its runtime to Bruce Wayne digging through old documents, trying to unravel clues, and following leads. For the first time in any film, you feel like Batman actually does the detective work necessary to earn his title. A neo-noir atmosphere is built around the detective angle, with a plot that focuses on corruption in a filthy, hopeless city. There are times when the superhero action theatrics feel secondary to involving the viewer in the mystery and creating thrills. 

“The Batman’s” story veers towards convoluted at times but it’s twisted web of villains and vigilantes coheres in a clever way. All of these masked figures, it turns out, have some pretty serious Daddy Issues. Batman’s crusade is explicitly characterized as one of vengeance for his dead parents. Catwoman, we soon discover, is looking to uncover the deadbeat dad that abandoned her. The Riddler, meanwhile, is also motivated by the murder of his father and the injustice he felt as an orphan. The reveal that Thomas Wayne, usually depicted as nothing but a saintly patriarch, might have something to do with this is a much needed one. No dad is perfect — lots of them are bad people — and making Bruce’s father a flawed figure makes his own story more nuanced. Meanwhile, the figure of the mayor’s orphaned son repeatedly appears, reminding everyone of the loss of innocence that triggers these issues. By rooting everyone’s motivation in a broken childhood, “The Batman” adds some appreciated complexity to the Dark Knight’s story. And all of that without another tedious visit to Crime Alley or a splintering pearl necklace. 

What most impressed me about “The Batman” is that Bruce Wayne gets a character arc that isn’t based in him overcoming a villain or building up his heroic persona. In his first scene, Batman beats a goon so brutally that the person he rescued is more scared of him than the attackers. He talks over and over again about “vengeance,” obsessed with reordering a chaotic, corrupt world into something that makes sense for him. Yet, as the story goes on, Bruce sees how deeply rooted these problems are in Gotham City. He discovers a police force that is not just complacent but actively participating in the destruction of their own city. He grows as a person, realizing vengeance alone isn’t enough to resolve these problems. This isn’t a narrative origin for Batman but a psychological, philosophical one. And that’s something I’m genuinely not sure we’ve seen before. 

Stepping into the bat-suit this time is Robert Pattinson. While Pattinson has done everything he can in the last decade to distance himself from his “Twilight” beginnings, working with respected auteurs in aggressively weird independent films, I’ll admit I still hadn’t shaken my image of him as blandly brooding Edward Cullen. Well, it finally happened. Pattinson supposedly didn’t bathe while in his superhero costume and that grunginess is palatable on-screen. This is a Bruce Wayne that doesn’t sleep. He’s pale and seems constantly exhausted. Through Pattinson’s voiceover narration, we get a peek at his truly obsessive thoughts. Never before have you so keenly felt how much Bruce Wayne’s quest is molded by his childhood trauma. When he has to do things like inject himself with adrenaline or make a desperate escape from the police station, you even get the distinct impression that this Batman is more unhealthy than an unstoppable ubermensch. It is, somehow, a new take on the character, at least in the movies. 

While Reeves’ movie is a lot closer aesthetically to “Batman Begins” than “Batman Returns,” I’m happy to say this movie has one thing in common with Burton’s films. Burton’s sequel operated on a barely contained lust, the characters seemingly addressing their sex drives through violence and kinky costumes. Reeves happily returns to these hormones. Pattinson’s Batman is a voyeur, watching Zoe Kravitz’ Selina Kyle slip out of her work clothes and into her Catwoman suit. The next scene has the two wrestling in a way that seems more than a little suggestive. Kravtiz’ Catwoman, while never underselling the character’s complex personality and back story, still purrs with sensuality. These two are extremely into each other and always seem minutes away from consummating their relationship. But their twisted personalities sublimates these desires into their obsessive quests. This is the first superhero movie I’ve seen in a while where it seems like people actually have sex. And that is much appreciated. 

Something else Reeves' film has in common with Burton's is a grand, gothic soundtrack. Michael Giacchino provides tolling bells, shrieking strings, and an immediately recognizable four note motif for the main character .These combine to make a theatrical and memorable musical soundscape. It matches a moody, grungy depiction of Gotham City. David Fincher seems to be the main inspiration here, as we're dropped into a city where everything is dirty, overcast or cold. Darkness and foreboding red are the main colors on display here, creating a truly hellish setting.

Another thing that made me skeptical about this movie is the Riddler being the villain. I’ve always found the Riddler to be the goofiest of Batman’s A-list rogues and the idea of reinventing him as a conniving serial killer struck me as a deeply boring choice. Yet the film ultimately makes it work. First off, unlike some in-name-only versions of classic villains we’ve gotten, the film still respects the character’s central gimmick. This Riddler still tells riddles. In fact, patterning his elaborate game after the Zodiac Killer’s ciphers works better in execution than I would’ve thought. This Riddler is also clearly influenced by Jigsaw, with the deadly trap he sticks his victims in, and “Seven’s” John Doe, with his twisted modus operandi and cramped apartment full of notebooks. 

Mostly, what makes this Riddler work for me is Paul Dano. Dano plays the villain as a master manipulator second and a huge fucking nerd first. He laughs awkwardly. His body language is never comfortable. His voice breaks during his villainous monologues. His motivations are ultimately petty and frustrated. And, like all nerds, he looks up to Batman. I was pleased to see the film successfully reinvent the character as a serious threat while keeping his most important qualities intact. 

And if this Riddler is a huge nerd, he’s also extremely online. Another influence on this version of the character is the cult of Q-Anon. He posts his ranting videos online and has a devoted group of followers, who repeat his catchphrases and follow his lead. At about the two hour mark, “The Batman’s” story seems just about resolved… Until it launches into an additional fourth act, that brings this element to the forefront. The Riddler then becomes a symbol of domestic terrorism and mass shootings in the new millennium, invoking a world where angry young men are radicalized into killers by enflamed online rhetoric. Whether or not it’s tasteful for a superhero movie to knowingly draw comparisons to real life acts of violence — or if this movie needed to be three hours long — are debatable. Yet at least “The Batman” wants to actually comment on the world, however vaguely, instead of just being escapist entertainment. 

As much as "The Batman" is focused on the psychological state of its characters and diving deep into its conspiracy, this is still a thrilling action movie. The standout action sequence is a freeway chase between the Penguin's getaway car and the souped-up muscle car Batmobile. The vehicles swerve in and around traffic, flames shooting from the engine as eighteen wheelers crash around them. Another equally tense moment has Pattinson ascending a staircase out of the police building before swooping off the roof in a flight suit, something he's clearly never done before and isn't sure if it'll work. Reeves dots the film with exciting moments like that, such as a hail of gunfire in a darkened hallway or an acrobatic brawl in a staircase. Yet the most exciting scene in the film features relatively fewer pyrotechnics. It instead involves Batman trying to talk a panicked victim of the Riddler through a series of questions before the bomb strapped to his neck goes off.

"The Batman" squeezes in a lot over its three hour runtime. This includes a number of meaty roles for established members of the Batman supporting cast. Jeffrey Wright makes for a memorably pragmatic Jim Gordon. He plays well off of Pattinson's brooding Dark Knight, even get some of the movie's funnier moments. John Turturro appears as Carmine Falcone, the crime boss pulling many of the story's strings. Turturro is certainly capable of hamming it up as an unhinged villain but instead goes in the opposite direction. His Falcone is calm, collected, observant, a slow and careful speaker. This makes it all the more intimidating when he does lash out in violence. I do wish Andy Serkis was given a little more to do as Alfred. Outside the obligatory scene where he establishes himself as Bruce's real father figure and a couple of moments of banter, he's mostly in the background. And I don't know why they cast Colin Feral as the Penguin, only to make him totally unrecognizable with make-up, but his palooka minor mafioso take on the famous bird-themed villain is memorable nevertheless. 

"The Batman" still has its flaws. It's definitely too long, the story feeling more-or-less over before the disaster-filled bonus finale begins. That's kind of an odd structure, even if it mostly works. I'm also not a huge fan of the goofy mask Catwoman wears in a few scenes. Reeves mostly avoids the sequel hooks and Easter eggs you associate with modern superhero movies... Save for the seriously unpromising teasing of Batman's most famous enemy, a character I think I've had my fill of. (Reeves claims this isn't a sequel hook but I don't believe him.) Despite those issues, I still found "The Batman" to be an extremely well made contribution to the character's cinematic legacy. Somehow, it manages to find new things to say about a superhero we're all very familiar, putting a thrilling and insight take on Gotham and the hero who protects it. [8/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)

As a kid, I always hoped a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie would get made. It’s a franchise I’ve been obsessed with since I was tiny. I’ve spent more hours than I could count reading the comics, watching the cartoons, and playing the video games. Naturally, the “Sonic” movies I’ve imagined in my head over the years were steeped in the obscure lore of the franchise’s further reaches. When a “Sonic” was actually made, it was instead a fairly grounded and basic kids movie. But I still liked it, as it exceeded my low expectations. Now, two years later, “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” has been made. The sequel brought Tails and Knuckles, Sonic’s most popular companions, to the big screen. With them, it seemed the movie series was digging more into the parts of the “Sonic” series that I really love. 

Since the end of the first film, Sonic has continued to live in Green Hills, Montana. At night, he sneaks out and uses his super speed to fight crime, to mixed results. After being left alone at home, while Tom and Maddie are on vacation, Sonic gets a real chance to test his mettle. Dr. Robotnik has returned, escaping the mushroom world he was stranded on last time. And he has a partner. Knuckles the Echidna is a proud warrior with the same sort of powers as Sonic, determined to settle a centuries old rivalry between tribes. When Tails — a young fox also from Sonic’s world — arrives, a race is soon on. Robotnik is after the Master Emerald, a legendary relic that can grant incredible powers to whoever wields it. Sonic and Tails want to make sure he doesn’t succeed, soon pulling the gullible Knuckles along with them. 

As I said before, a movie with Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in it is something I’ve been dreaming about almost literally my entire life. The first movie managed to surprise me because I expected it to be an atrocity. A lot more was riding on this sequel, for me personally. Too much, I think. Throughout this motion picture, I had to repeatedly remind myself that this movie isn’t for me. This isn’t the “Sonic” I would write. This is a breezy flick for kids to enjoy and their parents not to be too annoyed by. There are fart jokes. There are easily understood pop culture references, via Ben Schwartz’ constantly quipping Sonic. There is an extended dance number set to a top twenty pop hit, a sequence that felt especially gratuitous to me. These are not things I, personally, want to see in a “Sonic” movie. I don’t necessarily hate their inclusion. Schwartz is funny and the dance scene has a couple laughs. But moments such as these definitely had me second-guessing whether I was having a really good time or not, 

Then again, “Sonic 2” shouldn’t be measured against the half-mad imaginings of a life-long “Sonic” nerd. This is both a video game adaptation and a kids’ flick about a cuddly, sarcastic CGI animal. By those metrics, “Sonic 2” succeeds by just being fairly narratively coherent and having actual character arcs for its protagonist. In the first movie, Sonic was just trying to find his place in this mixed-up, crazy world, learning along the way that his friends are who he fights for. In the sequel, the hedgehog is learning to be a superhero responsibility. The opening, mad cap chase scene, where Sonic foils a high speed pursuit, wrecks as much chaos as it mends. All throughout the film, Sonic is waiting for the moment to prove himself. Considering the cinematic Sonic is more of an impulsive kid than any other version, this is a strong arc to graft to him. 

The first film mined a lot of cuteness, and even something like pathos, out of Movie Sonic’s status as a lonely kid. The sequel expands on that some. Sonic’s not so lonely now, as he’s got a home, substitute dad and mom, and even a suitably cute dog. Yet he’s still in search of some peers his own age, other cartoon animals he can relate to. Naturally, Tails and Knuckles provide just that. The sequel provides the inevitable cheer moment, when the Sega-created trio stand together as heroes. And, yeah, I internally cheered for that too. Yet the scenes of Sonic acting as a mentor to Tails or a friend to Knuckles are almost more satisfying. Our little blue son is growing up and watching that happen is pretty sweet.

And what of those beloved “Sonic” cast members that are now movie stars? How does the film handle Miles “Tails” Prower? Pretty well, I’m happy to say. His backstory is different, owing to the changes the movies have made to established “Sonic” lore. His personality is intact though. Tails is still the flying, boy genius able to invent almost anything the ridiculous plot requires. Despite his superhuman skills, he still doesn’t believe in himself much and looks up to Sonic as a big brother figure. The two CGI critters have an amusing chemistry together and it leads to more than one simply adorable moment. With regular Tails voiceover actress Colleen O'Shaughnessey returning to the role, it really does feel like Tails stepped right out of the cartoon or games. 

Knuckles, meanwhile, got the celebrity voiceover upgrade, with Idris Elba playing the echidna. Elba mostly does a decent job, though he sounds a little bored or out-of-his-element sometimes. He's still a physical rival to Sonic, imbued with similar (and still unexplained) powers to the movie-verse's hedgehog. He's also pretty gullible, which the screenwriters have turned into an overly literal mindset that reminded me a lot of Dave Bautista's Drax the Destroyer. Like that Marvel superhero, Knuckles is a proud warrior guy hyper-focused on his goal that eventually is accepted into the hero's improvised family. It's a transition that happens perhaps a little too quickly, over the course of about two scenes, but I was mostly pretty satisfied with how Knuckles was handled. 

Different as their backstories may be, I think "Sonic 2" mostly does right by its characters. The biggest issue facing the "Sonic" sequel, and maybe the entire film series going forward, is one of tonal identity. The first movie fit comfortably into the "live-action kids comedy starring a CGI cartoon character" genre, albeit with bigger action set-pieces and more callbacks to the source material. The second film is torn between this tone, heavy on the comedy and superfluous subplots starring fleshy humans, and something more akin to the aforementioned Marvel movies. "Sonic 2" devising its own mythology, separate from the games and comics. (And quite different, in a way that didn't entirely sit well with the pedantic nerd side of me.) The film's backstory is full of eons-old rivalries between warring factions, trying to control a massive source of power that change the nature of reality. We even get a fairly epic exposition dump, brought to life through stunning traditional animation. As "Sonic 2" goes on, the stakes get higher... Yet the film still seems reluctant to leave its small town setting behind, making sure the world-endangering theatrics never feel too severe. At some point, the people who make these movies are going to have to decide if "Sonic" is a goofy comedy, akin to "Alvin and the Chipmunks" or "The Smurfs," or if they're Paramount's attempt to forge their own universe of epic superhero movies. 

This uncomfortable divide is most apparent in the role the film's live action cast plays. James Marsden's Tom is ported off to Hawaii for most of the movie, which you would think would be an excuse to remove this largely superfluous character from a story that doesn't need him. But you don't pay a sort-of movie star like Marsden the big bucks and not use him. So Tom and his wife Maddie weave their way back into the story eventually. Okay, I guess it's possible someone out there was invested in the trials and tribulations of Doughnut Lord and Pretzel Lady. This doesn't explain why a lengthy chunk of the movie, halfway into its two hour run time, is devoted to Maddie's sister being angry at her fiancée and going on a BrideZilla rampage. It's agonizing, as if “Sonic 2” randomly switched reels with “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” for several minutes. Why is precious screen time in a Sonic movie devoted to the comic relief antics of a boisterous bride? 

This is not the only unnecessary, and frankly annoying, digression involving the live action cast. Tom's dim-witted deputy Wade gets far too much screen time, another symptom of the sequel's refusal to expand pass Green Hills for long stretches of the story. But one cast member at least does the extra leg-work. Jim Carrey, sporting Robotnik's traditional bald head and giant mustache this time, hams it up to his usually extreme levels. While you can debate how accurate a Robotnik that makes him, it's absolutely entertaining to watch. Carrey makes sure there's never much of a wait between funny moments, gratuitously stretching and contorting his face and body in a gloriously ridiculous fashion. My favorite moments is when he mimes playing his leg as a guitar or his liberal application of the phrase “hater.” The movie also smartly brings Lee Majdoub back as Agent Stone, Robotnik's loyal henchman. He has several cute scenes with Carrey that will make the shippers loose their minds. 

A lot of the complaints I've had here won't matter to most people. For the most part, “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is an entertaining mixture of humor and action sequences. I still don't know if Jeff Fowler has much of a visual eye as a director, as most of the movie is pretty pedestrian looking. However, he is good at engineering a decent action scene. A snowboarding sequence down a mountain side escalates nicely. When Sonic and Knuckles finally fight it out, it's a well done confrontation. One of my favorite scenes in the film has Sonic overcoming his fear of water. The last act definitely sets out to top the original's finale, in terms of special effects and collateral damage, and I would say it succeeds. Ultimately, “Sonic 2” is at its best when skillfully integrating elements from the original games into its silly plot. An extended set piece in the second half directly references the most difficult stage from the original game, with explicit shout-outs to many of the level's elements. I really enjoyed that.

By the way, the theater I saw the movie in was packed. There were many children present, all of whom were very into the film. While exiting the theater afterwards, I saw at least one little boy in “Sonic” shirt with matching red and white shoes. There is a part of me that's definitely pleased, and maybe even touched, to see that this dumb-ass franchise I love for some reason has already endeared itself to the next generation. And that almost makes the fact that “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” left me slightly disappointed, if still mostly entertained, all besides the point. This series is set to continue and I think it's entirely possible that, someday, it will mutate into a version of “Sonic” I'm really fond of. For now, I'll just admit that I hoped part two would be a little more impressive than it proved to be, while also mostly enjoying it. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Morbius (2022)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has doubtlessly changed the film world, for good and bad. Its success has caused every major studio in Hollywood to try cinematic universes of their own, most of which have been abject failures. Among the strangest attempts has been Sony desperately trying to build a franchise out of their half of the "Spider-Man" film rights. After many years in Development Hell, "Venom" finally emerged and became a surprise hit. Now the studio is trying the same thing with "Morbius," the "living vampire" that has pestered Spider-Man on-and-off over the decades. While Morbius has occasionally held down his own title, and has nearly appeared in movies before, he's never been anywhere near as popular as Venom. That made the proposition of the character getting his own movie dicey to begin with. That sweatiness only increased when the film was repeatedly delayed by the pandemic. Two years after it was filmed, and after six months of seeing the trailer every time I've gone to the theater, "Morbius" has finally been unleashed on the public. 

Michael Morbius has been afflicted his entire life with a debilitating blood disease, that has left him physically frail and requiring daily transfusions. He has worked to find a cure, becoming a brilliant scientist and inventing synthetic blood in the process. His research is funded by his rich adopted brother Milo, who suffers from the same disease. Yet Michael knows his time is running out. He works on splicing human and vampire bat DNA, making himself the first test subject. The serum reverses his condition... By making him a vampire-like creature with superhuman powers but a horrifying hunger for human blood. He sates himself on synthetic blood, which is quickly loosing its effectiveness, while working on a cure. This is complicated when Milo steals the serum and becomes a living vampire too, embracing his bloodlust and framing Morbius for murder. 

Much like Venom, Morbius started out in the comics antagonizing Spider-Man before his sympathetic backstory turned him into an antihero. (Unlike Venom, it was at least easy to disconnect Morbius' origins from the web slinger.) Nevertheless, Morbius does drink blood — or "plasma," if you're watching the 90s "Spider-Man" cartoon — and kill people. A bloodsucker torn between his unearthly hunger and his lingering humanity has been the foundation for countless vampire stories. "Morbius," disappointingly, half-asses this idea as much as possible. Upon becoming a living vampire, Morbius tears up some mercenaries on a boat. The film makes sure to establish these guys are immoral scumbags before they get munched, with even the cops clarifying their deaths aren't a big deal. While the movie briefly flirts with the idea that Morbius is killing innocents, it quickly establishes that Milo is responsible. The script repeatedly emphasizes the synthetic blood and Morbius' desperation not to take anymore lives. "Morbius" goes out of its way to remind the audience that its title character isn't a bad guy, that he's not a deadly bloodsucker. Such as when he stops a pair of counterfeiters, one of the film's more random digressions. This tendency drains the vampire premise of much of its tension, leaving "Morbius" ironically fangless in the process. 

This is not the film's only mistake. Its CGI special effects leave a lot to be desired. Morbius has vampire spasms, that cause his face to stretch and distort via CGI. By the end, he's developed cartoonishly pointy cheek bones. Milo gets it the worst, his CGI stretchy faces looking even goofier. The film is unusually enamored with Morbius' bat sonar powers, leading to multiple scenes of his ears twitching, his pupils getting weird, and sound waves vibrating around him. The film doesn't do a good job of clarifying Morbius' superpowers in general. He leaps through the air via blurry, misty effects that are never totally explained. His super senses manifest in scenes of goofy slow-motion. A scene where he's swept up on wind currents, before later using them to glide, is given a comical amount of attention. All of this is paired with some questionable visual choices from director Daniel Espinosa. He abuses Zack Snyder style ramping multiple times. The fight scenes eventually degrade into incoherent shaky-cam blurs of CGI mayhem. 

"Venom" had a lot of these same problems too. It managed to overcome those flaws because of an endearingly unhinged performance from its leading man and a wacky sense of humor. But "Morbius" doesn't have Tom Hardy in its corner. Instead, it has insufferable method actor/rock star/would-be cult leader/noted teen girl enthusiast Jared Leto. Leto's self-conscious intensity can occasionally work for films but, in the role of a humanist doctor forced to grapple with animalistic urges, he's hopelessly miscast. The long hair and multiple Jesus poses Leto strikes, when combined with his self-sacrificing personality, only makes Morbius seem like an extension of Leto's self-aggrandizing wannabe messiah act. All the attempts to add humor or humility to Leto's performance are hopelessly awkward. This is especially true when it comes to his relationship with Martine, the love interest played by Adria Arjona. She seems drawn to him for no reason, Leto and Arjona having zero chemistry. Maybe the movie should've cast Matt Smith, who plays Milo, as the hero instead. Smith's performance is campy and over-the-top, even more so when aided by the stretchy CGI effects. But at least he's having fun and showing actual human emotions.

In fact, Smith is probably the highlight of the film. The film tries to play Morbius and Milo's relationship as one of brothers turned against each other. But another angle quickly emerges. The two share intense eye contact in several scenes, their faces uncomfortably close. After both become living vampires, Milo taunts Morbius by begging him to "join him" and "give into his hunger." The villain becomes especially pissed off when he sees the hero kissing a woman. The only women he bites are those that are close to Michael, a form of revenge, as he otherwise preys on men. There's also an emotional "coming out" scene to a father figure. I don't know if this was a deliberate attempt to emulate "Venom's" queer undertones but it definitely doesn't seem like a mistake. This homoerotic subtext, when placed alongside the superhero melodrama, can't help but translate to campy laughs. It's not the only example of the movie being most humorous when it's trying to be serious. Look at the bat assisted special move that concludes the final fight, a scene so ridiculous it almost justifies "Morbius'" entire existence. 

If the film full-throatedly embraced this goofy streak, it probably would've been a decent time killer. Instead, "Morbius" approaches itself with all the grandness of the most portentous Marvel films. When paired with the questionable action scenes, weak effects, and a D.O.A. leading man, you get a superhero flick reeking with desperation. See also: The post-credit scenes that sweatily attempts to link "Morbius" with the MCU, in a manner that audibly confused at least one person in the theater with me last night. I don't even know if I can blame director Espinosa, as the film was obviously subjected to reshoots and studio tinkering. But I'm totally fine with blaming Leto's ego... Ultimately, "Morbius" isn't a fiasco. It's mostly just bland and boring, with only the occasional moment of funny bone-tinkling dumbness to enliven things. In other words: it's exactly what I expected from Sony's hasty attempt to exploit the "Spider-Man" assets they have access to. Better luck on those "Kraven the Hunter" and "Madame Web" movies, guys. [5/10]