The Last Duel Film Review

 The Last Duel 

Written By: Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon
Directed By: Ridley Scott
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck
2 h 32 m

Based on the book THE LAST DUEL: A TRUE STORY OF TRIAL BY COMBAT in Medieval France by Eric Jager, THE LAST DUEL tells the historic story of the last officially recognized judicial duel fought in France. That sounds incredibly dull. It’s anything but that.

The backstory behind the duel is dramatic, intense, disgusting and 90% better than any episode of Game of Thrones - only the stakes are a lot higher than any iron throne.

Set in medieval France, the film stars Matt Damon as Jean de Carrouges, a knight who challenges his friend and squire Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver) to a duel after Carrouges’s wife, Marguerite (Jodie Comer), accuses Le Gris of raping her.

Whoever loses the duel is considered the guilty party. Therefore, if Jean loses, Marguerite is also considered guilty and will be put to death for her indiscretions.

The movie utilizes the three-act Rashomon structure, retelling the same story from the three different standpoints of Jean, Jacques and Marguerite. For a two hour plus movie, it can seem a bit tedious but for the most part, the perspectives are set different enough, and engaging enough, that you don’t feel the movie drag.

As each act unveils new information, the tension continues to build for a nail-biting conclusion. (NOTE: If you’re like me and like to dive into historic facts behind a true story, do yourself a favor and go blind into this one for the most edge-of-your-seat experience. Then check out this article from the LA TIMES on the accuracy of the film)

The male characters are very dynamic and infuriating, with Affleck’s being the weakest link mainly due to a “comedic” demeanor. 

Marguerite can feel a bit flat next them. You want her to be more engaging, to be bolder, but I applaud Nicole Holofcener and Jodie Comer for holding back, and staying true to how women most likely acted/behaved during that era. 

The fact Marguerite even spoke out in 1386 is powerful in itself. 

Ridley Scott kept the film balanced with enough action between the drama to allow the audience a little relief and the duel itself was filmed with such intensity, you never forgot what was really at stake.

And that, in my opinion, was the most important aspect of telling this story. 

You want the audience to never forget what is really behind the fight. And with a story like this one, you also want the audience to leave imprinted by the horrific actions shown on screen. Make the audience want to engage in a better future.

Because even though this event took place in the late 1300’s, not much has changed. And it should.

Theresa's Rating
4.00 out of 5.00

Triple Frontier Review

By Emery Snyder @leeroy711

Director: J.C. Chandor

Starring: Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam, Pedro Pascal & Garret Hedlund

Netflix Original – March 13, 2019

A group five of disaffected and financially stressed special ops adrenaline junkies all suffering from varying levels of PTSD get together to pull the ever-fated “one last job.” The plan is to break into the fortress of a ruthless Colombian cartel kingpin and steal his $75 million, then smuggle it out of the country and retire. All goes exactly according to plan, the bad guys all perish, and the soldiers spend the rest of their days sipping rum drinks on some beach without an extradition treaty…. That would be a pretty lousy movie.

The film was co-produced by Kathryne Bigelow and Mark Boal and it was co-written by Boal and Chandor. As expected from a Boal screenplay, the military procedural aspect is the film’s highlight. The stakes are heightened by situation only while characters remain largely stoic and wooden. We are meant to extrapolate the men’s emotions strictly from their backstories, never from their faces. I’m not degrading the film because of this. This type of indifference has its place. And Boal spent time as an embedded reporter in the earlier years after the invasion of Iraq, so I trust that his writing draws from the soldiers he witnessed in combat. Suppression of emotion is seen as a necessary survival tactic here.

So much of how successful a movie like this is to me will always depend on how well the scenes are shot. This film boasts several very well composed shootouts. The spaces are beautifully scoped in 2:11:1 ratio, giving the audience a clear perspective of the action presented. This is something that I always tend to mention because it is something that is so often done poorly. But here, I was glad to be able to easily follow along with each set piece, always having a good sense of where the threat was coming from and where our protagonists were moving towards. Cinematographer Roman Vasyanov has already made a name for himself in action cinema with films like END OF WATCH (’12) and THE WALL (’17) and I see his work continuing to improve.

I was also pleased to find that this, unlike many similar films, seemed to have an acute awareness of the moral ambiguity of what these men were up to. Although the characters were easily able to overcome their individual crises of conscience, the film itself keeps its thumb down on them as they struggle to keep themselves and each other convinced that what they are doing is righteous or even justified. It doesn’t take much to draw the parallels between their actions and the duplicitous nature of our own government’s involvement in Latin America over the past century. This is a moral tale more than anything. The fruits of ill-gotten gains are heavy, and fraught with peril. The money they steal becomes the reason they have such a hard time escaping the region. It weighs on them, both physically and metaphorically.

Unfortunately, this film suffers from some strange pacing issues. I think this is what separates it from better works. The scene from the trailer, that you would expect to be the climax, happens about thirty minutes in. Nothing afterwards manages to live up to the promise of the first act. It actually feels like the stakes dwindle the longer you watch, as does your overall interest. And this is a problem when your running time is over two hours.

In summary, TRIPLE FRONTIER is a well-made and better than average action flick that refreshingly acknowledges the faults of its own heroes. But fall well short of greatness in its overall delivery.

Emery’s Rating

3.25 out of 5 Stars

Follow us on Twitter @CodaReviews

The Accountant Review

The Accountant

Dir: Gavin O’Conner

Starring: Ben Affleck, Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons, Cynthia Addai-Robinson, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Tambor, and John Lithgow

The action film lately has seen its fair share of tough guys. A transporter who can throw fists and kicks with the best of them, another named Wick who thought he hid a deadly past under a slab of concrete, and a tough guy who has “a particular set of skills” that are useful when he needs them. Who would have thought that an accountant would share the same qualities with every character mentioned above. 

It makes sense that an accountant would be a good action hero. Aside from the pocket protector and wingtips, an accountant has to be meticulously organized, prepared for unexpected variables, and capable of assessing large quantities of information at rapid speeds. Add some hand-to-hand combat skills and weapons training and you’d have a fairly deadly weapon ready for action.

The premise isn’t quite so simple in director Gavin O’Conner’s film “The Accountant”. Ben Affleck plays a man named Christian Wolff who has an impressive aptitude with numbers but not so much with human connections. Christian is autistic; his military father took a non-professional approach of treatment, exposing Christian to loud noises, flashing lights, but also military combat training. Aside from being a brilliant everyday accountant, Christian also organizes the books for some of the most dangerous men, terrorists, and mobsters in the world. How does Christian stay safe? His unique brain and training from his father has turned him into a seemingly unstoppable assassin. 

First, Ben Affleck is really good here. The character of Christian is a man who struggles with people, understanding different emotions and subtle personality traits is more difficult for him than going through years of extensive, complicated accounts with millions of numbers. Mr. Affleck holds together the loose ends that unfortunately compose the narrative. Anna Kendrick offers some good chemistry with Mr. Affleck but also some humor that the two utilize often. J.K. Simmons plays a retiring treasury agent with nothing but charm, a man with secrets and conflicts of his own but also an understanding of the world he operates in. Mr. Simmons always brings an interesting quality, even to the most unoriginal characters like this one.

Aside from Mr. Affleck’s detailed, deft performance that provides the messy narrative with some interesting moments, there are unfortunately movements in the script that make zero sense. Most of the turns and reveals in this thriller are fairly easily discerned. Still, there are some good scenes found throughout the clutter. Specifically the relationships established by Christian, one with an analyst (Anna Kendrick) of a company investigating the loss of millions that puts Christian in a difficult position and another with a family member seen mostly in flashbacks. It's these interesting character dynamics that keep the film engaging.

“The Accountant” is a no-nonsense, sometimes dull, action thriller with a great performance from Ben Affleck. Surprisingly it still has a very watchable and pleasant quality, in the same way that mindless action films can occupy space without any other requirement than executing a by-the-numbers script with a good character. The cast delivers and that may be enough for some to overlook the missteps within the story. 

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Dir: Zack Snyder

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

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s fight night! Ali verse Frazier. Tyson verse Holyfield. Mayweather verse Pacquiao. And now, to the delight of superhero movie fans everywhere, we have the biggest and most anticipated comic book character fight of the year so far, Batman verse Superman. Ring the bell!!! These two icons of pop culture meet face to face in director Zack Snyder’s film “Batman v Superman: Dawn of the Justice”, and the results are epic, chaotic, and confusing. Many times sloppy yet sometimes spectacular, it is a combination of everything you would expect from three films worth of material shoved into one.

“Man of Steel” established that Superman (Henry Cavill) wanted to protect humanity, even though he struggled with how to utilize his power and the extent of his purpose. This culminated with an epic battle that destroyed most of Metropolis, including a building owned by Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck).  Three years have passed and Superman is worshipped and hated by humanity, seen by some as a god and others as a threat. One of the people who believe Superman’s existence can only lead to disaster is Bruce Wayne. After spending a lifetime fighting crime Bruce has changed and Superman has threatened the ideologies that guide Batman.

The introduction to the film is exceptionally well established. Having to answer for the devastation at the end of “Man of Steel”, the situation is handled through the political system, with the primary question being “Is Superman needed and what should his accountability be?”. It’s a great question to ask, one that doesn’t often get asked in superhero movies. This becomes even more intriguing when Batman steps in to add his two cents. The film takes the time to explain Bruce Wayne’s origins, moving back and forth in the timeline throughout the beginning of the film. It’s a nice touch that allows the viewer time to understand the version of Batman that we are getting in this movie, a darker more disgruntled super vigilante.

This narrative aspect doesn’t continue because, as the title of the film suggests, there are more pressing matters to get to. The climax of the film is everything you’d imagine, a fight that is filled with every superhero action scene trick and special effect that we’ve come to expect. While it is overindulgent and unnecessarily frenzied, is it fair to fault a film for indulging in methods every other version like it has done already? Not necessarily. However, the fault here comes because other versions have done this action better already and with more impactful purpose. “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is leading to this tumultuous encounter, and for a small moment everything goes in a spectacular direction with both characters until it changes and becomes a disorganized mess of computer generated effects that at times look terrible.

There are some great moments and some very good actors given room to do something with their characters. Ben Affleck makes a great Batman; he just fits the look and channels the downtrodden, world-weary aspects of an older Bruce Wayne. Jesse Eisenberg plays Lex Luthor with little restraint; sometimes it works while other times it’s completely overdone. Mr. Eisenberg has always done egotistical very believably; adding the characteristics of a man on the verge of lunacy the actor is given all the fun villainous lines, delivered with good and bad results. With so many moving parts many characters are left in the dark. Henry Cavill and Amy Adams have already been established in “Man of Steel”, so here they are forced into the trappings of a love story. Gal Gadot, playing Wonder Woman, is shuffled into scenes with characters for no real purpose other than preparing the viewer for her scene stealing reveal and establishing that this won’t be the last time we see her.

Much of what we see in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” are familiar elements already introduced by the Marvel franchise, while some of the moments are actually quite intriguing and exciting there are also questionable moments that feel forced and confused, an issue of too many hands on the keyboard or the need to quickly catch this franchise up with every other superhero property. While I was hoping for a main event battle of exceptional proportions, this film felt more like an undercard, an event with a lot of build up and little payoff.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

Gone Girl Review

Gone Girl

Dir: David Fincher

Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Carrie Coon, Tyler Perry, Neil Patrick Harris, Kim Dickens, and Patrick Fugit

149 Minutes

David Fincher has made a career taking audiences to dark places with bad people. In the beginning moments of Gillian Flynn’s scripted adaptation of her popular novel “Gone Girl”, a man is gentle caressing the head of a beautiful woman, the way two people in love would, however the voice-over narration concerning the situation is a violent soliloquy of hatred. Fincher meticulously expands the impressions of deceit and hatred seen in the opening and seduces the viewer into a two-hour plus unsettling journey that is also completely mesmerizing. 

Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike) portray a fairy tale like existence, one that blossoms with the kind of flirtation and charisma that is inevitably bound to end with a storied kiss in the perfect atmosphere. A few years into marriage and the sheen of new love has dulled and problems, like a fledgling economy, puts adversity into the relationship. Survival instincts take over and difficult decisions are made uprooting the couple to the Midwest. Distances grow bigger and the once inseparable couple are now strangers living under the same roof. Then Amy disappears under circumstances that place Nick at the wrath of a media circus.

Flynn’s novel is told with a unique perspective, offering alternating discussions from the point of view of both Nick and Amy. It’s complex and would seem difficult to sustain intrigue and mystery, however in the skillful hands of David Fincher the film comes to life with a flood of harsh emotion. To explain or offer specific examples from the film would be to spoil the surprises of the multifaceted character driven narrative. Fincher’s recognizable aesthetic of color-drained scenes highlighted by a mixture of contrasted grey and blue make the film feel void of life, a design that accommodates the characters who themselves display heartless feelings and actions. It’s never an easy or pleasurable experience to watch unfold, terrible people doing terrible things, and in fact feels and emulates characteristics more akin to a horror film. It’s impressive how the film crafts the characters, painting them initially in amiable ways then revealing the composed façade. Fincher makes you root for different characters, forcing the viewer to change allegiances, yet at the core you are ultimately cheering for a different kind of villain.

Ben Affleck is great as the charming though deceitful Nick, his small-town-guy appeal is noticeable from the beginning and exploited often. Whether to redirect suspicions or emphasize trust, Nick is a pawn for the narrative transitions and Affleck executes. Rosamund Pike is exceptional. Amy is conniving, methodical, and overall intelligent. Fincher incorporates these qualities with physical changes and emotional outbursts that range from controlled to frantic. Pike strikes every note. The supporting cast is pinpoint, from Tyler Perry’s shrewd defense attorney to Kim Dickens’ discerning detective, everyone accomplishes. 

David Fincher’s filmmaking is meticulously composed to keep the viewer from finding their balance. Gillian Flynn’s narrative structure accommodates the design, the score evokes an emotion of dread and despair, and the performances are near impeccable. While the film may drag just a bit in the latter half, Fincher never loses grasp but instead keeps the tone darkly entertaining and the mystery enthralling until the credits role.

Monte’s Rating

4.25 out of 5.00